Civil Writ Petition No.3004 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3004 of 2006 Date of decision: March 25, 2008 Sat Pal … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Balbir Singh Jamwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Salil Sagar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate for respondent No.5. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Satpal son of Khushal Chand, Sub Fire Officer, Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar has preferred this writ petition praying for quashing of impugned order dated 11th November, 2005 passed by Director, Local Government Punjab, Chandigarh in pursuance of order passed by this Court in C.W.P. No.14605 of 2005, whereby claim of the petitioner for grant of promotion to the post of Sub Fire Officer from the date of passing of the course of Sub Fire Officer or over and above to respondent No.5 to 8 who were junior but were promoted with effect from 20th September, 1995 was rejected. Petitioner claimed that his juniors were promoted w.e.f. 20th September, 1995 whereas he was promoted on 25th November, 1997. Civil Writ Petition No.3004 of 2006 2 Petitioner had earlier filed C.W.P. No.14605 of 2005. That writ petition was disposed off with a direction to respondents to take a decision on legal notice by passing a speaking order within a period of two months. In compliance with that order, impugned order (Annexure P-15) has been passed. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Fireman in the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar on 10th October, 1975 and thereafter on 26th February, 1983, he was promoted as Leading Fireman. In January 1989, he passed the course of Sub Fire Officer from the National Fire Service College, Nagpur and was promoted as Sub Fire Officer on 25th November, 1997. Grievance of the petitioner is that even though, he has passed the course of Sub Fire Officer in January 1989, four private respondents, Jatinder Pal, Nand Lal, Amarjit Sharma, Kishan Lal were promoted to the post of Sub Fire Officer on 20th September, 1995 when they were only posted as fireman, whereas petitioner, before their promotion, stood promoted as Leading Fireman. Therefore, it has been contended that petitioner was not only holding a senior post but had also obtained qualification of Sub Fire Officer before above named four private respondents acquired the qualification. Perusal of Annexure P-15 and written statement of respondent No.1 and 2 reveal that before 7th May, 1999, all appointments and promotions were made by the respective Municipal Corporations as per the seniority list operative in respective Municipal Corporations according to their cadre strength and each Municipal Corporation was maintaining a separate seniority list of respective cadre working in Municipal Corporation. It was only on 7th May, 1999 that cadre was provincialised and a common seniority of all the Municipal Corporations Civil Writ Petition No.3004 of 2006 3 was prepared. The following two relevant portions of the written statement filed by respondent No. 1 and 2 are necessary to be incorporated here: “That as provided U/s 71 of Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 there are two types of services in Municipal Corporation known as Provincialised and non- provincialised cadre services. The services, which have been constituted by the government under section 71 (1) of the Act of 1976 are known as “provincialised” or “constituted” service and government is their appointing authority. All remaining services in Municipal Corporation are termed as “non-provincialised” or “Non constituted” and the appointing authority thereof is respective Municipal Corporation. The employees of non provincialised service are not transferable from one Municipal Corporation to the other Municipal Corporation and similarly they have a separate seniority list of respective cadre prepared of the employees working on that cadre in Municipal Corporation. On the other hand, the seniority list of “provincialised cadre employee” is prepared at the level of the government and all the employees working in different Corporation are placed in this seniority list. As per the contents of this writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as Fireman in Municipal Corporation, Amritsar on 10.10.1975 and was then promoted and appointed as leading fireman by Municipal Corporation on 26.02.1983. On the other hand all the private respondents were not working in Municipal Corporation Amritsar. Therefore, the promotion of petitioner from the post of Fireman to that of Leading Fireman and then as Sub Fire Officer on 26.02.83 and 25.11.94 were ordered by the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar after taking into consideration the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Fireman and leading Fireman. Similarly, the appointment of all the private respondents no.5 to 8 as Fireman and then their promotion as Sub Fire Officer was made by the Municipal Corporation in which they were working after considering the seniority of the private respondents. Thus, when the petitioner was promoted as Leading Fireman and then as Sub Fire Officer, the petitioner Civil Writ Petition No.3004 of 2006 4 has no concern whatsoever with the private respondents no.5 to 8 as they were working in some other organization, which has its own, separate legal entitee.” When counsel for the petitioner was confronted with the reasoning given in the impugned order (Annexure P-15) and in the written statement, he has stated that since he has acquired qualification of Sub Fire Officer by passing the test earlier to the private respondents, necessary relief should be granted to him in order to set right the loss caused to him. Petitioner was promoted as Sub Fire Officer on 25th November, 1997. Cadre was provincialised on 7th May, 1999. For the first time, petitioner approached this Court in September 2005. Furthermore, what accrued to anybody in the cadre of respective Municipal Corporation before the cadre was provincialised, cannot be taken back and the petitioner cannot agitate what happened in different corporations before the cadre was provincialised. Therefore, we find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge [Ashutosh Mohunta] Judge March 25, 2008. rps