CWP No. 16059 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16059 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: September 08, 2010 Tirath Ram and others .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Advocate, with Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take over the charge of stock/heavy machinery under respective charge of the petitioners before relieving the petitioners and transferring them to new place of posting as a consequence of order Annexure P-1 dated 30.10.2010 (even the original order reflects the date as 30.10.2010, however, on reading of the contents of the order, it seems to say 30.08.2010). 2. Learned counsel contends that order Annexure P-1 cannot be reconciled. First part of order contradicts the later part of order and, therefore, the petitioners are under a quandary. The impact of order would adversely affect the rights of the petitioners. 3. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. Order at CWP No. 16059 of 2010 2 issue, Annexure P-1, reads as under:- “It has been decided during the meeting held today i.e. on 30.8.2010, under the Chairmanship of Principal Secretary, Irrigation that all the staff including J.Es already transferred from S Y L Canal Project, may be relieved immediately and compliance report for the same may be sent by 10.00 A.M. tomorrow i.e. on 31.8.2010 positively. The J.Es which are holding charge of Stock/H.E.M shall continue to be retained by them till the alternative arrangement for handing over the charge to the J.Es of K.A.D Administration is made (emphasis supplied). In case of non-compliance, break in service of the transferred employees shall be considered after noon tomorrow i.e. 31.8.2010.” 4. The portion highlighted above is the portion on account of which the petitioners are aggrieved. Learned counsel contends that the petitioners are all Junior Engineers who are holding the charge of stock/heavy machinery. If the order is accepted as it is, the petitioners are required to be relieved from the place of posting to join at distant places, however, have also been directed to hold the charge of the stock and heavy machinery, which is not only impractical but also impossible. 5. Having considered the contents of the order, I am sure that the same can be reconciled by the officer who has issued the order namely Chief Engineer/KAD, Irrigation Works, Punjab, Chandigarh. 6. One possible interpretation of the order could be that the Junior Engineers who are holding the charge of stock/heavy machinery are CWP No. 16059 of 2010 3 required to maintain the place of posting till new Junior Engineers join and take charge of the stock/heavy machinery. It is, however, for the officer who has issued the instructions to clarify the issue so that the ambiguity in the minds of the employees is removed and they are not penalized because of ambiguous nature of order. 7. This petition is disposed of with directions to Chief Engineer/KAD, Irrigation Works, Punjab, Chandigarh to reconsider the contents of the order and clarify the same so that the rights of the Junior Engineers who have been transferred, however, are also holding the charge of stock/heavy machinery, are not adversely affected. 8. The Chief Engineer is required to take action and clarify the issue within one week from today. 9. Copy of the order be given under signatures of Court Reader to Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab for onward transmission to Chief Engineer. 08.09.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?