IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15300 of 2004 DATE OF DECISION : 15th November, 2010 Punjab Poultry Development Corporation Workers Union through its Secretary. …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr.D.S.Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioner Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab Mr.H.S.Dhandi, Advocate for respondent no.2 Mr.Harnaik Singh, Advocate for Mr.P.S.Thiara, Advocate for respondent no.3 -- KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J Punjab Poultry Development Corporation Workers Union has approached this Court that Annexure P-15 dated 25.03.2004 vide which claim of the petitioner was declined illegally be quashed and a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to adjust/appoint the petitioners in the Punjab Livestock Development Board-Respondent no.3 which according to the petitioner was constituted after name/nomenclature of Poultry Development Corporation was changed to Punjab Livestock Development Board. Annexure P-15 was issued by Punjab Live Stock Development Board and the same reads as under:- Civil Writ Petition No.15300 of 2004 “Subject:- Representation of the petitioners in CWP No.17509 of 03 titled as Punjab Poultry Development Corporation Workers Union Vs. State of Punjab (through PLDB) Please refer to the subject cited above. It is submitted that the case of the employment of the petitioners is being considered sympathetically. As and when any fresh recruitment is made by the Punjab Live Stock Development Board, the petitioners representations will be considered on priority basis. Sd/- Chief Executive Officer 25.3.2004” Grievance of the petitioner is that even though the promise was made in Annexure P-15 that as and when any fresh recruitment will be made in Punjab Live Stock Development Board, case of the petitioner will be considered sympathetically but no appointment have been given to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents for Punjab Live Stock Development Board has stated that till today Punjab Live Stock Development Board has made no appointment and the employees of Punjab Animal Husbandry are discharging their duties in the Punjab Live Stock Development Board. Hence, it cannot be said that the organization has not kept its promise. To examine the controversy raised in the present writ petition, it will be necessary to notice brief facts. The State of Punjab in order to develop the business of Poultry farming and to help small farmers to augument and supplement their income incorporated Punjab Poultry Development 2 Civil Writ Petition No.15300 of 2004 Corporation. This corporation was a company and the hundred percent share holdings was of State of Punjab. The stand of the State Government is that due to terrorism in the State of Punjab, the business of poultry deteriorated and the poultry corporation suffered losses and became sick. Therefore, the government decided to wind up the corporation and the all assets of the company after sale were utilized to pay retrenchment compensation to the employees of the poultry corporation. Learned counsel for Punjab Poultry Development Corporation has stated that at the time when the corporation was wound up, it was having about 147 employees on its role. It is stated that as per the proposal of the State disinvestment commission all employees except 26 employees accepted Golden Hand Shake scheme formulated by the corporation at the behest of the government and they left the corporation being satisfied. This factual position is controverted by Mr.Patwalia, learned counsel for the petitioners and it is submitted that though initially at the instance of 26 employees, the present petition was initiated, as they were seeking employment in government department and had not accepted golden hand shake scheme, but out of them 13 have been adjusted by the government and the rest have been discriminated. Learned State counsel submits that out of these 26 employees 15 have accepted the retrenchment compensation and only 11 remain, who have neither been adjusted nor have accepted the golden hand shake scheme nor the retrenchment compensation. Learned Counsel further submits that State is even now willing to pay retrenchment compensation to these workmen, even though they have returned the cheques issued in their favour. 3 Civil Writ Petition No.15300 of 2004 Having noticed the broad controversy, it is now the time to notice the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner to verify whether claim made in the writ petition that petitioners ought to be adjusted in the government department is tenable. Mr.D.S.Patwalia, counsel for the petitioner has referred to a communication addressed by Secretary, Animal Husbandry Fisheries And Dairy Development Department to the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab on 8.4.1999. In this communication, the Secretary of the department had pleaded to the Chief Secretary that the employees of Punjab Poultry Development Corporation should be adjusted against the vacant posts in Department of Animal Husbandry Fisheries And Dairy Development. Mr.Patwalia, counsel for the petitioner states that even though this was genuinely felt by the Secretary of the Government that such a course will mitigate agony of the employees, no consideration was given to such a request by the concerned quarters of the State. It is further stated that a memorandum was prepared for the consideration of the council of Ministers. (Annexure P-7) by the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Animal Husbandry Fisheries And Dairy Development in which it was recommended that the name of the existing Punjab Poultry Development Corporation be changed to “Punjab Live Stock Development Board” and the assets of the corporation be used by the Punjab Live Stock Development Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon a note submitted by a sub committee of the Cabinet (Annexure P-6) dated 14.05.2001 wherein it was recommended that after closing Punjab Poultry Development Corporation, surplus staff may be adjusted in other undertakings of the Government. Learned counsel 4 Civil Writ Petition No.15300 of 2004 has further referred to a notification issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Animal Husbandry Fisheries and Dairy Development dated 8th June, 2001 whereby Punjab Live Stock Development Board was constituted as State level autonomous body. A reference to this notification can be made to notice that Animal Husbandry Department, Punjab has transferred the following assets to Punjab Live Stock Development Board :- 1.Semen Bank, Bull Farm and Mother Farm, Patiala. Including land. 2.Semen Bank and Bull Farm, Nabha Buildings, Machinery 3.Semen Bank and Bull Farm, Kapurthala Equipments Livestock and Other assets 4.Semen Bank and Bull Farm, Ropar However, to controvert it, Mr.Dhandi has drawn my attention to the following portion of notification (Annexure P-8):- “The Staff of the Semen Banks Bull Farm and Bull Mother farm listed above and other related filed functions will remain on the roll of the Animal Husbandry Deptt. And continue to get salary from the deptt. Under relevant plan/non plan Schemes. They will however be attached for work with the Punjab Livestock Development Board. The non-salary annual budgetary outlay of the concerned schemes will be transferred to the board every year during the project period. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 5 Civil Writ Petition No.15300 of 2004 The Board will not directly recruit/employ/hire staff on regular basis. It will get either on deputation from the Govt. Deptts./Public Sector Enterprises or on fixed term contract basis.” Relying upon a part of the notification, reproduced above, Sh. Dhandi has stated that Punjab Live Stock Development Board has not enrolled any employee. Employees on the role of Animal Husbandry Department of Punjab are performing their duties in Punjab Live Stock Development Board and drawing their salary in Punjab Animal Husbandry Department. This case has been taken up by the various Coordinate Benches. In pursuance to orders passed by them Dr.Baljit Sidhu, Chief Executive Officer, Punjab Live Stock Development Board Chandigarh has filed an affidavit dated 16.3.2006. In the affidavit, it has been stated that the employees of Animal Husbandry Punjab are performing their duties in the Punjab Live Stock Development Board. It is further stated in the affidavit that the Punjab Live Stock Development Board has been constituted with Animal Husbandry, Punjab as nodal agency Sufficient funds have been provided by Government of India under National Project for implemention of Project of Cattle and Buffalo Breed Improvement, through artificial insemination. The following portion of the affidavit is required to be noticed:- “Thus, from this, it becomes unambiguous that there is no relation between Punjab Poultry Development Corporation and Punjab Livestock Development Board, It is further humbly submitted that the memorandum, copy of which has been attached as Annexure P-7 with the instant writ petition, never attained finality. This also becomes 6 Civil Writ Petition No.15300 of 2004 evident on the perusal of Notification, copy of which has been attached as Annexure P-8 with the writ petition, issued by the State Govt. vide which the respondent Board was formed.” Learned counsel for the State has further relied upon a decision reported as “Avas Vikas Sansthan and another Versus Avas Vikas Sansthan Engineers Assn. and others (2006) 4 Supreme Court cases 132 to contend that the power to abolish any civil post is inherent in every sovereign Government and such abolition will not entail any right on the person holding the abolished post, the right to re-employment or to hold the same post. While holding so, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Avas Vikas Sansthan’s case (supra) appreciated the conduct of State of Rajasthan in formulating the scheme whereby alternative employment was offered to the employees in other local bodies of the Government. Thereafter the Hon’ble Apex Court issued a direction to the State of Rajasthan to re-employee the employees of Avas Vikas Sansthan in the local bodies as per the scheme formulated by the Government of Rajasthan. In the present case a sub Cabinet Committee of the Government had recommended vide Annexure P-6 that the surplus staff should be reemployed in the other undertakings of the Government. Similar stand was taken by the Secretary to the Government of Punjab. In Annexure P-15 it has also been stated that as and when any recruitment is to be made by the Punjab Live Stock Development Board, the representations of the petitioners for reemployment shall be considered on priority basis. Therefore the conduct of the State indeed has raised legitimate expectation of the employees that as and when any post is available in the undertaking of 7 Civil Writ Petition No.15300 of 2004 the department of Animal Husbandry they can be re-employed. It has to be further noticed that to redress the grievance of the employees, State came forward with a golden hand shake scheme. It was another fair offer to swear umbilical cord between the employer and the employee. Further more State also in consonance with the statutory provisions had provided retrenchment compensation. In these circumstances, the Court shall be hesitant to issue any direction to the State to re-employ the petitioners but shall expect that the case of the petitioner shall be considered by the State sympathetically in terms of recommendation of Cabinet Committee (Annexure P-6) and its communication (Annexure P-15). Petition stands disposed of in view of the observations made above. No costs. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) November 15, 2010 JUDGE p.singh/rps 8