CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20525 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 28, 2009 Sant Ram .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The issue of change of cadre is raised by the petitioner through the present writ petition. The petitioner was initially appointed as Peon on 6.1.1977. He was promoted as a Clerk on 5.11.1982 when he was called in the head office for typing work. The petitioner joined the head office in May, 1990. Though he was again called in the field office but the petitioner claims that he was permanently absorbed in the head office through order dated 17.2.1992. As per the petitioner, he was appointed as Typist against vacancy. The CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20525 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 2 }: petitioner accordingly pleads that he now belongs to the head office cadre and, thus, his seniority is required to be fixed in the head office. The petitioner stands promoted in field office cadre where he does not wish to join and accordingly has prayed that he be not relieved from the present post. The petitioner has also filed a representation pleading that he has been absorbed in the head office, which has been rejected on 21.11.2008 and so he has filed this writ petition to plead that he is from head office cadre where he should be granted seniority and considered for promotion. In the reply filed, the relief claimed by the petitioner is contested. It is pointed out that he was appointed as Peon on 6.1.1977 and was promoted as a Clerk on 11.11.1982 on the basis of his seniority in the field cadre. Subsequently, he made request for posting in the head office, Chandigarh due to his domestic problems and so his request was considered and he was temporarily adjusted in the head office where he joined on 29.2.1992. It is, thus, stated that his transfer to the head office was purely on a temporary basis. To further substantiate this stand, the respondents would refer to the request made by the petitioner for adjusting him in the head office cadre with the condition that he would not claim any seniority in the field cadre. The qualification being different, the prayer for relaxing the same was rejected and, thus, his representation was also rejected on 28.10.1994. This order apparently has not been challenged by the petitioner. When asked about it, the counsel says that this was never communicated to the petitioner and hence he could not challenge the same. The issue is short and crisps in this case. It is only CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20525 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 3 }: required to be seen if the order, whereby the petitioner was transferred to head office, would be treated as an order of change of cadre or not. Annexure P-2 is the order in this regard which clearly says that consequent upon his transfer, the petitioner was temporarily attached with IBHO, Haryana. Though there is some mention made for reckoning his seniority, but still this order does not give any inclination or an indication that this was an order to absorb the petitioner in the head office cadre. This order appears to be a simple order of transfer temporarily attaching the petitioner in the head office and appears to have been made on account of the request of the petitioner as is reflected in the reply filed. If this was the order of absorption or a change of cadre, there was no need for the petitioner to make a request for his adjustment in the head office cadre on 22.9.1993 which was rejected on 28.10.1994. The petitioner has also been promoted in the field office cadre. If Annexure P-2 was an order of change of cadre, the respondents would not have considered the petitioner eligible for promotion in the field office cadre. The facts and circumstances, as narrated, would clearly show that order, Annexure P-2, is not an order which could be taken as an order changing the cadre of the petitioner. That being the position, the whole case set up by the petitioner would lose its base. The prayer made by the petitioner, thus, cannot be accepted. The reference made by the counsel for the petitioner to number of judgments to say that the petitioner could not have been transferred outside the cadre without his consent for change of his cadre would not help his cause. It is an accepted position that the transfer of the petitioner was on his request and that too in the year 1992. If he CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20525 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 4 }: wishes to urge that he cannot now be sent from head office cadre to field office cadre without his consent, then it is not a case of transfer from one cadre to another as he was never absorbed or transferred to the cadre of head office as already noticed. The remaining judgments referred to and relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in the cases of Chief Security Commissioner, South Central Railway Vs. H.Srinivasa Rao, 2001(4) RSJ 598, State of Haryana and another Vs. K.K.Gupta and others, 2001(4) RSJ 455, Rohtash and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2006(4) RSJ 142 and Jawaharlal Nehru University Vs. Dr.K.S.Jawalkar and others, 1989(3) SLR 730 also relate to the transfer of cadre without consent and, thus, would have no bearing to the facts pleaded and emerging in the present case. The writ petition has no merit and is, therefore dismissed. August 28,2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE