IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 16796 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION : 21.08.2009 Nem Singh .... PETITIONER Versus Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Karanvir Nanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate, for the respondents. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for quashing the order of reversion dated 22.9.2006 (Annexure P-7), passed by respondent No.1, whereby he has been reverted from the post of Auction Recorder to the post of Peon in Market committee, Palwal. It is the admitted position that the petitioner was initially appointed as Class IV employee on 1.6.1983 in Haryana Tanneries Limited Jind, a Government of Haryana enterprise. On winding up of the said Company, a writ petition (CWP No. 9469 of 1988) was filed by the Haryana Tanneries Employees Union (Registered), Jind, before this Court, which CWP No. 16796 of 2006 -2- was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 1.12.1988 (Annexure R-1) with the following directions : “We direct the respondents to take the retrenched employees either as Class IV employees or other managerial staff in the Government Corporations or Boards according to the qualifications of each of the employees and their fitness. Such absorption of retrenched employees shall be done within a period of six months from the date. If any relaxation of the age limit is necessary, that shall also have to be done before appointments. The retrenched employees also will be entitled to take into account the services rendered in the Haryana Tanneries Limited in case they are appointed in personable jobs for the purpose of pension and other retirement benefits. However, it is made clear that any appointment made under this order shall be treated as new appointment for the purpose of seniority among employees.....” (emphasis added) In compliance with the said directions, the petitioner was given appointment as Peon in Market Committee, Palwal (respondent No.2 herein), vide order dated 8.12.1989, with a clear stipulation that “this is a fresh appointment. No benefit shall accrue to you by virtue of the service put in by you in any other Govt. or Public Sector Undertaking.” The petitioner accepted the appointment letter with the above condition and joined the service with respondent No.2 on 8.1.1990. Subsequently, vide letter dated 7.9.2001, name of the petitioner was referred by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 for inclusion in the seniority of Matriculate Class IV employees and in the said letter, CWP No. 16796 of 2006 -3- inadvertently the date of joining of the petitioner was mentioned as 1.6.1983 instead of 8.1.1990, as Class IV employee. Due to the said mistake, the petitioner was included in the provisional seniority list maintained by respondent No.1 at serial No. 89. Subsequently, on the basis of the said seniority, vide order dated 10.10.2002, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Auction Recorder. When a similarly situated employee filed CWP No. 2163 of 2005 for promoting him to the said post after giving him the benefit of service rendered in the Haryana Tanneries Limited, this mistake came to the notice of the respondents, and thereupon, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for withdrawal of the promotion order. After considering the reply filed by the petitioner and personally hearing him, the impugned order dated 22.9.2006 was passed, reverting the petitioner to the post of Peon with immediate effect. However, it was ordered that no recovery of pay will be made from the petitioner on account of his reversion from the post of Auction Recorder to the post of Peon. Thereafter, the petitioner joined his duties as Peon on 20.10.2006 with respondent No.2 and subsequently, challenged the said order by filing the instant petition. I have heard counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to controvert the aforesaid factual position. However, he submits that once the petitioner was promoted in the year 2002, then after 4 years, there was no justification to revert him, particularly when the services rendered by the petitioner in Haryana Tanneries Limited, which was also a State CWP No. 16796 of 2006 -4- Government enterprise, should have been counted towards seniority and if that service is taken into consideration, the petitioner could not have been reverted from the post of Auction Recorder. Learned counsel further argued that vide judgment and decree dated 30.9.2002 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Civil Court, a similarly situated employee, namely Suraj Bhan, was granted the benefit of increment of 8 and 18 years service towards higher standard pay scale, while taking into account the service rendered by him in Haryana Tanneries Limited. Therefore, in the case of the petitioner, the service rendered by him in Haryana Tanneries Limited, should have been taken into consideration, while considering his claim of promotion to the post of Auction Recorder. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. When this Court in CWP No. 9469 of 1988 gave the directions to absorb the employees of Haryana Tanneries Limited, it was specifically made clear that any appointment made under the said order shall be treated as new appointment for the purpose of seniority among employees. In compliance with the said directions, when the petitioner was appointed as Peon with respondent No.2 vide appointment letter dated 8.12.1989, a specific stipulation was laid down that the said appointment would be taken as a fresh appointment and no benefit shall accrue to the petitioner by virtue of the service rendered by him in any other Government or Public Sector Undertaking. While accepting the appointment with the said condition, the CWP No. 16796 of 2006 -5- petitioner joined the service of respondent No.2 on 8.1.1990. In view of the said stipulation, the date of appointment of the petitioner as Peon in respondent No.2 should have been taken as 8.1.1990, but inadvertently, by a mistake, while taking his date of joining the service as 1.6.1983, the petitioner was shown at serial No. 89 in the provisional seniority list. Because of this mistake committed by the respondents, the petitioner was wrongly promoted as Auction Recorder on 10.10.2002. When this mistake came to the notice of the respondents, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for his reversion. After providing an opportunity of hearing and following the principles of natural justice, the impugned order of reversion was passed. I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness or violation of principles of natural justice in the impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been reversed from the post of Auction Recorder to the post of Peon. However, in the impugned order, it has been rightly ordered that no recovery of pay, which was paid to the petitioner consequent upon his promotion as Auction Recorder, will be effected from him. Counsel for the petitioner could not point out as to how the date of joining of the petitioner in respondent No.2 can be taken as 1.6.1983. With regard to the grant of benefit of increment of 8 and 18 years service towards higher standard pay scale to one Suraj Bhan, I have perused the judgment and decree (Annexure P-8), passed by the Civil Court. In the said judgment, the claim of Suraj Bhan for counting of the service rendered by him with Haryana Tanneries Limited, for the purpose of fixation of seniority was declined. Therefore, on CWP No. 16796 of 2006 -6- the basis of the said judgment, the petitioner cannot be granted the benefit of service rendered by him with Haryana Tanneries Limited towards seniority. In view of the above, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed. August 21, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE