CWP No.12471 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.12471 of 1992 Date of decision May 11, 2011 Lala Ram ....... Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. S. K. Sud, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Satbir Singh Goripuria, DAG, Haryana. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The writ petition challenges the order of reversion passed on 8.9.1992 on the basis of seniority list published on 31.10.1983 (Annexure P-8). By the impugned seniority list the earlier seniority position had been modified in view of the instructions given by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government dated 28.11.1986 directing that the vacancies created by transfer of employees from the Irrigation Department to the BBMB, BSNL etc., would not be covered by the provisions of reservation. I have held in a connected writ petition in CWP No. 9893 of 1990 filed at the instance of the Chet Ram and others that the communication was erroneous and I have quashed the same. I have held in the judgment that the persons who are transferred had not been sent on CWP No.12471 of 1992 2 deputation but there were cadre posts of the respective departments where they were working and by a transfer they could not cause any upset to the reservation rosters in the cadre. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that by the proceedings of the Secretary, the roster positions had been changed and the earlier seniority list published on 26.9.1983 (Annexure P-6) was modified. It is pointed out by the counsel that at the time when the seniority position was drawn up under Annexure P-6, Mr. B.K. Gupta, who is arrayed as a fourth respondent was not anywhere in the picture and he had been junior to the petitioner. Only on account of the revised seniority list, the petitioner who was a scheduled caste category was removed and his seniority position was refixed below Mr.B. K. Gupta. The petitioner who had secured promotions to the posts of Deputy Superintendent, Superintendent and Executive Officer was on account of refixation of seniority by the impugned seniority list (Annexure P-8) who was reverted from the post. This reversion is also in challenge. 3. Having regard to the fact that I have held that the persons who had been transferred to BBMB etc., must be retained in the cadre for drawing up the roster and for reservation of posts the reassignment of seniority through the impugned communication of the Chief Secretary was not justified. Learned counsel states that although the order of reversion was stayed by this Court on 15.9.1992, the respondents still carried out reversion and in the petition for contempt, the respondents contended that the reversion order had been given effect to before the Court order was communicated. 4. It is stated that the petitioner has been superannuated in the year 1993 during the pendency of the writ petition. In line with my finding that the seniority position drawn up was on an erroneous basis and which is liable to be quashed, the order of reversion CWP No.12471 of 1992 3 cannot also be sustained, the order of reversion is also quashed. 5. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to draw all benefits that had accrued to his post which he was holding at the time when the impugned order of reversion was passed. He shall be also entitled to draw the terminal benefits on the basis of what he was entitled to the post which he was holding when the impugned order of reversion was made. The computation of all the attendant benefits pursuant to the quashing of the order of reversion and the fixation of seniority shall be made and paid to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 11, 2011 archana