IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 588 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 28, 2011 I.K. Chandna ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. HON'BLE MR. HON'BLE MR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. HON'BLE MR. HON'BLE MR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JUSTICE JUSTICE JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The services of the petitioner-appellant along with others were taken over by the Government when he was working as a Senior Lecturer in K.M. College, Narwana. According to the conditions of absorption, dated 20.6.1979 (R-2) it was made clear by clause 2 and 9 that only such members of the staff of the College who were considered as suitable for absorption in Government service were to be taken and they were to be treated as new entrant. The Government scales of pay were to be allowed them and there was no personal grade for anyone and there was no guarantee in regard to protecting their existing salaries at the time of taking over. It was on the aforesaid condition that the services of the petitioner-appellant were taken over and he was placed at the bottom of the seniority list of Senior Lecturer, vide order dated LPA No. 588 of 2011 (O&M) 2 19.5.1989 (P-3). However, on 24.1.1994 (P-6), he was reverted on the post of Lecturer. 2. The reliance of the petitioner-appellant on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Khanna (Dr) S.K. Khanna (Dr) S.K. Khanna (Dr) S.K. Khanna (Dr) v. v. v. v. State of Haryana State of Haryana State of Haryana State of Haryana, (1994) 1 SCC 601 , (1994) 1 SCC 601 , (1994) 1 SCC 601 , (1994) 1 SCC 601, has not been found to be meritorious because there dispute had arisen concerning seniority amongst the Government employees in Government colleges and Hon’ble the Supreme Court observed that w.e.f. 1.1.1973 their rank was to be protected. However, the petitioner-appellant is governed by the conditions of absorption as incorporated in order dated 20.6.1979 (R-2). 3. Having heard learned counsel we are of the considered view that no interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge would be warranted. The judgment in Dr. S.K. Khanna’s case (supra) would have no application to the facts of the present case. In fact, it is well settled proposition of law that the terms and conditions of take over are to govern the rights and liabilities of the parties. No doubt is left that the petitioner-appellant has no right to claim that he has to be treated as Senior Lecturer for all intents and purposes. There is, thus, no merit in the instant appeal. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) (GURDEV SINGH) (GURDEV SINGH) (GURDEV SINGH) July July July July 28, 2011 , 2011 , 2011 , 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Pkapoor