CWP No.6905 of 1986 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6905 of 1986 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.05.2011 Sri Krishan ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anjum Ahmed, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. Prayer in the writ petition is for setting aside the impugned order dated 5.12.1986 (Annexure P-7) whereby the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with, being surplus. The facts as are available on record are that the petitioner was appointed as an Instructor (Blacksmithy) by the Haryana State Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited on 24.4.1979. The Corporation was also running training-cum-production centres under the IRD programme and the employees of the corporation are used to be posted in these centres. The State Government having found that expenses being incurred by the corporation on the training programmes were on higher side, decided to wind up these centres under the control of the corporation and the employees were to be taken over by the District Rural Development Agency (for short, “DRDA”). The petitioner having not been permitted to join service of the DRDA, filed CWP No.3251 of 1986, which was allowed in terms of earlier order passed by this court in CWP No.2476 of 1985 decided on May 13, 1986, according to which the petitioner was taken back in service. CWP No.6905 of 1986 2 Thereafter, services of the petitioner having been found to be surplus, were dispensed with vide impugned order dated 5.12.1986. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the absence of tripartite agreement, his services could not be transferred to the DRDA by the corporation. His second submission was that the junior staff has been retained in service. Where services of surplus staff were to be dispensed with, junior most should have been removed on the principle of “last come first go”. He has referred the name of Kashmiri Lal stating that he was appointed on 15.1.1982 but still was retained in service. On the other hand learned counsel for the State submitted that the entire work of the training cum production centre being run under the IRD programme was transferred to the DRDA along with the staff working therein. Some of the employees having not been permitted to join the service at new place, filed CWP No.2476 of 1985 in this court, which was allowed on May 13, 1986. CWP No.3251 of 1986 filed by the petitioner was allowed, in terms of which the petitioner was taken back in service but having been found surplus, his services were dispensed with. He further submitted that in the present case, Kashmiri Lal who is stated to be junior to the petitioner, was in fact appointed on a different post i.e. Supervisor, which is higher in status, hence the petitioner cannot claim parity with him. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paperbook. As far as first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the absence of tripartite agreement for transfer of service by the corporation to the DRDA is concerned, that issue cannot be raised in the present petition where the order impugned is the termination of the service of the petitioner by the DRDA being surplus. Undisputedly, the petitioner had filed earlier CWP No.3251 of 1986 raising the grouse regarding his being not permitted to join service at the new place and the petition having been allowed by this court, the petitioner was initially permitted to join service with DRDA. This grouse could be raised at the stage when earlier writ petition was filed by the petitioner, where only prayer was for a direction to the respondents in the earlier petition for permitting the petitioner to join at new place with the transfree authority. CWP No.6905 of 1986 3 The plea regarding tripartite agreement at this stage is totally misplaced and hence declined. As far as the plea raised by the petitioner regarding he being senior to Kashmiri Lal and, therefore, his service should not be dispensed with being surplus, is found to be misconceived. The petitioner was appointed as Instructor whereas Kashmiri Lal was appointed as Supervisor. The posts are not equal in status and not in the same cadre rather it is stated by the counsel for the State that the post of Supervisor is higher in rank than the Instructor. This court while passing the order in CWP No.2476 of 1985 had specifically permitted the respondents therein to dispense with service of the surplus staff. For the reasons stated in the above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. Dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 03.05.2011 sharmila