CWP No.9244 of 1991 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9244 of 1991 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.07.2011 H.S. Grewal ... Petitioner Versus The Union of India and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Dr. Balram K. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mahit Bakshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate and Mr. P.S. Walia, Advocate, for respondent No.1-Union of India. None for respondents No.2 to 9. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner seeks for quashing of an order made on 10.08.1990 purporting to appoint the petitioner as a Group-B Officer of the R.P.F. in the revised Group-A Junior Scale w.e.f. 01.01.1986. This according to the petitioner, constituted a reversion since he already held Group-A post as a Commandant in the RPF/RPSF. The post, which he has held as Commandant, as could be seen from the record, was by virtue of an order transferring and promoting him to the said post issued by the Joint Director, Establishment Railway Board on the following terms: - CWP No.9244 of 1991 (O&M) [2] “(ii) Shri H.S. Grewal, Officiating Assistant Security Officer Western Railway should be appointed to officiate as Commandant and transferred to 7 BN/RPFS w.e.f. 01.01.1981. (2) S/Shri Garwala & Grewal be paid full senior scale pay under normal rules and advised that the above arrangement is purely adhoc and will not confer on them any claim for such promotion, in future, in preference to officers senior to them.” 2. This order clearly shows that the petitioner was not appointed to a substantive post on a regular employment. It refers to his appointment as purely ad hoc and states that it will not confer to him a “claim of such promotion in future in preference to officers senior to him”. The last expression, according to learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, would mean that he cannot be reverted unless there was someone senior to him, who had to be retained in Group-A post and there was no vacancy, therefore, he had to be reverted. 3. I cannot allow for a construction to these words in the manner canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel. The words, on the other hand, states that in any event of promotion, he cannot stake a preference to his senior when he was holding a purely ad hoc post. The petitioner cannot have a grievance in this case unless he is able to show that someone, who was junior to him in the ad hoc post, had been retained and confirmed in the same post and while he alone was repatriated to Group-A Junior Scale by the order dated 10.08.1990. There is no means of knowing whether the post which he CWP No.9244 of 1991 (O&M) [3] held as Commandant was a permanent post or whether it was decided to abolish the same. In any event, it is not possible to dwell on issues which are not immediately relevant to us. All that could be seen is whether the officiation as a Commandant that obtained through the order dated 27.12.1980 and his continuance in office till 1990 could afford to him a right to the same post and would enable him to contend that he cannot be put in Junior Scale subsequently on 1990. The point need not deter us to engage in serious forensic exercise for the case presently a simple situation of a person, who officiates on ad hoc post could have no claim to the same and appointment that follows subsequently in a Junior Scale cannot be taken even as a reversion. It was only to be taken as repatriation to the original post with the scales as admissible on the date when the impugned order was passed. 4. I do not find any merit in the petitioner's claim and it is, accordingly, dismissed. JULY 20, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE