IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6772 of 1996 Date of decision: January 7, 2009 Smt. Sudesh Thakur ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Jindal, AAG, Haryana. Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. This petition is a part of the bunch of cases. However, learned counsel are agreed that these cases are not such as can be decided by a common order. In these circumstances, this matter is segregated from other cases, which will have to be decided individually. The petitioner was appointed as a Store Keeper in respondent No.3 by order dated 09.01.1981 and joined as such w.e.f. 13.02.1981. It is her case that right from the inception the respondents took the work of Assistant from her. On 11.06.1985, the petitioner moved an application to the Managing Director to CWP No.6772 of 1996 -2- change her cadre from Store Keeper to Assistant with effect from the original date of her joining on the ground that she had been working as such and that the posts were identical in terms of pay and responsibilities. By order dated 10.07.1985, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant by transfer by the Managing Director. The order further laid down that her pay would remain protected and date of increment would also remain the same. Thereafter, a tentative seniority list of the Assistants was issued and, on the representation of the petitioner she was allowed seniority as such from the original date of her appointment i.e. 13.02.1981. The grant of this seniority to the petitioner was challenged in this Court and the same was set aside with the following direction: “Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the respondents are directed to re-decide the matter after hearing the petitioners as well as the respondents. It will be open to the Federation to even grant hearing to others who may be adversely affected by the final decisions. The respondents may do the needful as expeditiously as possible preferable within six months. In the circumstances of these cases, there will be no order as to costs.” Thereafter by order Annexure P-11, the matter was re- decided and with regard to the petitioner it was held that her very appointment as Assistant by transfer was wrong. It is this order under challenge in this writ petition. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has limited his claim only to validation of her CWP No.6772 of 1996 -3- appointment as Assistant and is not claiming that the petitioner should be granted seniority w.e.f. 13.02.1981. It is his argument that the rules envisage appointment by transfer and that the competent authority for appointing her was the Managing Director. He further argued that the appointment of the petitioner by transfer as Assistant was never challenged by anybody. It is his further stand that what was remanded back by this Court was only the question regarding the seniority of the petitioner and thus the action of the respondents in setting aside her very appointment was ultra vires. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents defended the order on the ground that the posts of Store Keeper and Assistant were borne in different cadres and thus the very basis of the appointment of the petitioner (on the ground that the posts were identical) was misconceived. In my opinion, this petition deserve to succeed. There is no gain-saying the fact that the rules envisage appointment by transfer; that the competent authority was the Managing Director; that the qualifications for the two posts were same; that the petitioner was doing the work of an Assistant right from the date of her appointment; that there had been no challenge to her appointment by transfer; and that this Court had remanded the matter only with regard to the seniority. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the posts were borne in different cadres, even though correct would not militate against the above mentioned facts. CWP No.6772 of 1996 -4- Consequently, this petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure P-11 to the extent that it has invalided the very appointment of the petitioner as Assistant is quashed and the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant w.e.f. 10.07.1985 is held to be valid. January 7, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE