C.W.P. No.12618 of 1991 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.12618 of 1991 Date of Decision: 19.01.2010 Mahabir Parsad Jain, Municipal Engineer, Municipal Committee, Bhiwani ....Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana through the Commissioner & Secretary to Government, Haryana and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG, Haryana for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 petitioner challenges the order passed on a representation made by the petitioner that the seniority assigned to him in the gradation list was wrong and persons, who had been shown juniors in the year 1983, had, in the subsequent issuance of gradation list, been re-assigned seniority higher to him. The contention of the petitioner was that he was working previously in the Sonepat Improvement Trust and subsequently when the Trust was dissolved, he had been absorbed with the Municipal Committee on a policy of absorption issued by the State of Haryana. The response to the plea of the petitioner is that the seniority list within the Municipal Committee had been originally on District basis till the year 1982 and by an altered decision to C.W.P. No.12618 of 1991 -2- integrate the various District Committees, an integrated seniority list was prepared for the entire State and persons like the private respondent Nos.3 to 7 had already been working in the Municipal Committees and hence the seniority in the various District Committees were maintained for the private respondents. As regards the petitioner, who was inducted into service in the Municipal Committee, the seniority was assigned only at the time of his entry. There were no Rules providing for counting the seniority in the Improvement Trust and it was a matter of State Policy at the time when the Trust was dissolved and persons such as the petitioner were removed from service, a decision to absorb the employees of the Trust had been taken. With no specific policy having been taken to maintain the seniority in the Improvement Trust, I am of the view that the petitioner could not demand as of right that the seniority position assigned in the Improvement Trust must be carried forward to the Municipal Committee as well. The further contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent is that the rights and liabilities of the Improvement Trust had been taken over only on 22.12.1986 and the petitioner could not claim as a matter of right, the retention of his seniority position in the manner held by him at the Improvement Trust. Yet another objection on behalf of the respondents is that when a provisional seniority list had been drawn, the petitioner had given a representation earlier on 01.01.1981 and it was also rejected on 01.01.1987. That rejection order itself had not been challenged. The petitioner kept on C.W.P. No.12618 of 1991 -3- making representations and he has chosen merely to challenge the decision of the Government, which filed his last representation by the impugned proceedings dated 08.07.1991. 2. The contention in defence by the State merits acceptance and in the absence of a specific Rule or Policy spelt out by the Government maintaining the seniority in the previous establishment, the petitioner cannot demand as of right that the seniority position must be taken to be a different date from when he actually entered into the service of the Municipal Committee. The retention of the seniority positions amongst the respondents drawn from different District Committees were on a different yardstick of a policy consideration of integration of the District services and retaining a single seniority list at a State level. The petitioner cannot treat himself on par with persons working in various District Committees since the petitioner did not belong to the cadre in the District Committee and he had joined from a different establishment. The decision to file the petitioner's representation without further action was, under the circumstances, justified and nothing survives for favourable consideration of the petitioner. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 19, 2010 Pankaj*