LPA No. 1066 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 1066 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.05.2010 Rajesh Kumar ....Appellant. Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Ms. Anu Chatrath Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab for the State. Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Advocate Mr. H.S. Sran, Advocate ... Alok Singh, J. 1. By way of present LPA, appellant – petitioner is impugning order dated 2.9.2009 passed by learned Single Judge, thereby dismissing the writ petition challenging order dated 13.4.2007 passed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Ajnala, transferring the petitioner from the office of the Executive Officer to the Bus Adda for collecting Bus Adda fee. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner was LPA No. 1066 of 2009 2 working as Junior Assistant in the office of the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Ajnala. He was directed to be posted at the Bus Adda, Ajnala for collection of Bus Adda fee. As per the petitioner, earlier only Peons were being deputed at Bus Adda for collecting Bus Adda fee, and the petitioner, who was working as Junior Assistant, was wrongly posted at the Bus Adda with ulterior motive. 3. Plea taken by the respondents before learned Single Judge was that ofcourse, earlier fourth class employees were being posted at Bus Adda for collecting the Bus Adda fee, however, after due passage of time, it was realised and decided by the Nagar Panchayat, that since job of collection of Bus Adda fee involves the finances of the Nagar Panchayat, hence besides Junior Assistant, one clerk and one peon be deputed at Bus Adda for collection of Bus Adda fee, hence, there is no question of any ulterior motive in posting the petitioner. 4. Learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 2.9.2009 has held that the petitioner is discharging the duties as Junior Assistant and is getting the pay of the post of Junior Assistant and as per the policy decision, Nagar Panchayat has decided to post Junior Assistant alongwith one clerk and one peon at Bus Adda, hence order posting the petitioner at Bus Adda for collecting Bus Adda fee, does not call for interference. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the appellant has made complaint on which enquiry was directed to be held against respondent No.4. However, due to pendency of the writ petition, enquiry is not being proceeded with. The Executive Officer has rage LPA No. 1066 of 2009 3 against the petitioner, hence while exercising his jurisdiction, he has illegally directed to post the petitioner at Bus Adda for collecting Bus Adda fee, to settle the score. 7. We are not inclined to accept the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. The mere fact that earlier fourth class employees were being posted from time to time at Bus Adda for collecting Bus Adda fee, does not mean that after the passage of time, Nagar Panchayat cannot decide to post Junior Assistant alongwith one clerk and one peon at Bus Adda for the purpose of collection of Bus Adda fee. Since collection of Bus Adda fee involves finances, hence policy decision taken by the Nagar Panchayat cannot be faulted with. Moreover, the appellant would be getting same pay and there will be no change in the service conditions of the appellant and he would be enjoying same status. We are not inclined to interfere with the finding recorded by learned Single Judge. 8. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the appeal is devoid of merit and hence, is dismissed. 9. It is made clear that dismissal of the writ petition would not amount to expressing any opinion on the merits of the complaint, which is alleged to pending against respondent No.4. Enquiry against respondent No.4 shall not be affected by the dismissal of this writ petition. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 17.05.2010 sk.