CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1176 OF 1987 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 08, 2009 Hukam Chand .....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. Rupak K. Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) The petitioner, who was working as Assistant in the office of the Deputy Development and Panchayat Officer, has filed this writ petition in the year 1987 for quashing gradation list, Annexure P-1 and the impugned order, Annexure P-3. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to re-fix his seniority by declaring him senior to respondent No.3 and to consider him for promotion in preference to respondent No.3. The petitioner joined the service as Clerk of Haryana Government from 5.1.1972, after his selection by Haryana CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1176 OF 1987 :{ 2 }: Subordinate Services Selection Board. The petitioner was appointed to the field staff cadre of the Development and Panchayat Department, Haryana. Respondent No.3 was appointed as Clerk on 27.10.1971. He was posted at head-quarter at Chandigarh in the office of Director, Development and Panchayat Department, Haryana. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant against a temporary post with effect from 2.3.1979. It is averred in the petition that there are two separate cadres in the Development and Panchayat Department, one as the headquarter staff and another as the field staff. The seniority of both the cadres is maintained separately and the promotion to the higher post is also made according to the seniority so maintained. It is stated that Clerk working in the head office cadre is entitled to the selection grade while the clerks working in the field staff cadre are not given such selection grade. Grievance is that respondent No.3 was given selection grade while working on the post of Clerk in the head office. Subsequently, respondent No.3 was promoted to the post of Assistant on 27.2.1976 against a permanent post in the head office cadre. Pleading would show that respondent No.3 was transferred to field office on his request and was posted at Rohtak on 12.2.1978 as Assistant. Thereafter, he remained posted in the field office. It is stated that earlier also staff working at the head quarter office used to be transferred to the field office but they used to be called back to the head office and none was given seniority in the field staff cadre. Pleading would show that petitioner and respondent No.3 are governed by the Service Rules of 1980 known as Haryana Panchayats Department (State Service Group C). Reference is made CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1176 OF 1987 :{ 3 }: to Rule 12 of the said Rules, which talks of inter-se seniority, which is required to be determined on the basis of length of service on any post in the service. It is also provided therein that in case of different cadre in the service, seniority shall be determined separately of each cadre. Making reference to all these rules and the facts as already noticed, the petitioner has made reference to the gradation list of the staff working in the Panchayat Department issued as on 1.10.1986. Respondent No.3 is shown at Sr.No.7 with the remarks that seniority maintained at head quarter whereas the petitioner has been shown at Sr.No.8. It is further disclosed that respondent No.3 made a representation, claiming promotion to the post of Head Clerk on the basis of seniority of the field staff. Without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, an order on 2.4.1984 was passed holding that respondent No.3 be considered senior in the cadre of field staff from 18.7.1978, the date on which he joined the field office. The petitioner represented against the same but still order dated 15.1.1985 was passed holding respondent No.3 to be senior to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter made a representation. The petitioner was provided an opportunity of hearing and vide order dated 10.2.1986, it is held that seniority of respondent No.3 be fixed from the date he joined as Assistant/Accountant in the field staff. This order ultimately is challenged in the present writ petition. The plea taken in the written statement is that Satish Kumar and Balbir Singh were not given seniority by counting their service of the head office. It is disclosed that Balbir Singh was appointed in the year 1971 and in the same month, he was transferred on the post of Clerk in the field staff. It is also stated that CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1176 OF 1987 :{ 4 }: at that time, there was no separate cadre in the head quarter and the field staff because the field staff posts were created in the field cadre in 1971. it is then disclosed that after the abolition of Zila Parishads in 1973, it was decided by the Government that there should be a separate cadre for the field staff and head office. Balbir Singh had already been transferred to field staff in the year 1971. Satish Kumar, as per the written statement, was not given any benefit in the field cadre of his service rendered at the headquarter. His seniority is fixed from the date he joined as Assistant/Accountant in the field staff. The plea of the petitioner, thus, was rejected. Respondent No.3 was ordered to be transferred in the field cadre on 18.7.1978. This order was never challenged. The petitioner, though has challenged the seniority of respondent No.3 but not the order of transfer/absorption in the Field Cadre. Once respondent No.3 was allowed to work in the Field Cadre, where he was absorbed, then his seniority in that cadre was required to be fixed. He has not been given any benefit of his seniority for the time he worked in the head office. In the absence of challenge to transfer of respondent No.3 to the Field Cadre, the challenge to fixing of seniority can not stand. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed in the writ petition. Accordingly, no case for interference in writ jurisdiction is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. July 08, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE