LPA No. 161 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 161 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: August 29, 2011 Ramji Dass and others ...Appellants Versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 to 6 and 8. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? GURDEV SINGH, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the legal representatives of Sushil Kumar Saini—writ petitioner, against the order dated 10.5.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, in which the petitioner had prayed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, Certiorari or any other suitable writ or direction, quashing the impugned orders Annexures P/5, P/7, P/11, P/13 and LPA No. 161 of 2011 2 P/16. 2. Sushil Kumar Saini-petitioner was initially appointed as Computer Operator in the pay scale of Rs. 110-225 in the Directorate of Land Records, Haryana, vide order dated 11.9.1978 and joined his duties as such on 18.9.1978. In pursuance of the office order dated 28.2.1979, he was absorbed in the office of the Directorate of Consolidation of Holdings with effect from 1.3.1979. His services were regularized alongwith similarly situated employees, vide Government Gazette Notification dated 4.3.1983 with effect from 15.9.1982. Services of Charan Singh-respondent was regularized with effect from 1.4.1985. Seniority list was issued on 14.10.1985, in which he was shown senior to the non-official respondents, including Charan Singh. The order issued, vide notification dated 4.3.1983 was superseded by another order dated 9.10.1988, whereby the services of Harsh Kumar, Amar Singh, Raj Singh, Charan Singh and Madan Lal— respondents, were regularized with effect from 1.1.1980 and thereby the petitioner was made junior to all those respondents. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner made representation dated 11.11.1988, challenging that ante- dated regularization of the respondents. The Director, Consolidation of Holdings, vide letter dated 16.2.1989 advised him to file an appeal before the State and accordingly, he filed the appeal. The representations filed by him, including the representation Annexure P/12, were rejected by the authorities, vide order Annexure P/13. He had been promoted as selection grade clerk with effect from 21.3.1985, vide order dated 4.9.1987, on the basis of the above said seniority list. Subsequently, the selection grade was withdrawn vide order dated 5.3.1990/3.4.1991 (Annexure P/16). 3. The petitioner challenged the above said order by pleading in LPA No. 161 of 2011 3 the writ petition that the services of the non-official respondents were regularized from the earlier date i.e. 1.1.1980, despite the fact that they were not possessing the requisite experience and were not fulfilling the other conditions, as contained in the Government notification. The action of the official respondents, which made him junior to all those respondents in the seniority list, is totally against the law and the principles of natural justice. Those respondents could not have been given the benefit of past service rendered as Computer Operators in short term scheme in different Departments in the absence of any provision to that effect in the gazette notification. Madan Lal and M.P. Aggarwal—respondents, who have also been shown senior to him, belong to field offices, whereas, he was serving in the head office throughout. He joined the office on 28.2.1979/1.3.1979, whereas his services have wrongly been regularized with effect from 15.9.1982. It is well settled principle of law that regularization of services relates back to the original date of appointment and, as such, he should have been regularized with effect from 1.3.1979 and that will make him senior to the non-official respondents. His representations were rejected by one line cryptic order without assigning any reason. He being senior to all the non- official respondents, is entitled to the selection grade from the date it fell due and was given to the persons, who were junior to him. 4. Respondents No. 1 and 2 in their written statement, while admitting the factual position, pleaded that the services of respondents No. 3 to 6 and 8 were rightly regularized with effect from 1.1.1980. The seniority list mentioned in the writ petition was only a tentative seniority list and after the services of said respondents were regularized from 1.1.1980, the seniority list was modified and they were shown senior to the petitioner. LPA No. 161 of 2011 4 They had already completed two years of service, entitling them the benefit of regularization. The notification itself is explanatory and their services were regularized after ex-post facto sanction was granted by the Government, after consideration of the matter that these respondents were employed through employment exchange and they worked as Computer Operators till 31.12.1978 and thereafter have been working as Clerks in the Consolidation Department. They had already completed two years of service. The seniority has been given to them by giving the benefit of their past service. The service of the petitioner was regularized with effect from 15.9.1982 and, as such, he was rightly placed in the seniority list below those respondents and his representation was rightly rejected. Being junior, he was not entitled to the selection grade. 5. Learned Single Judge, after going into the pros and cons of the submissions made by both the respondents, came to the conclusion that the non-official respondents were always senior to the petitioner and their services were rightly regularized with effect from 1.1.1980 and the petitioner being junior, the selection grade was wrongly granted to him, which was rightly withdrawn and in the result dismissed the writ petition. 6. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. 7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that Charan Singh-respondent could not have been made senior to the petitioner as he was not fulfilling the requisite qualification for regularization of his services and at the relevant date his services could not have been regularized from a back date. Once, the selection grade had been given to the petitioner, the same could not have been withdrawn, without affording him an opportunity of being heard. The principles of natural LPA No. 161 of 2011 5 justice have been violated. The petitioner being senior to Charan Singh, is entitled to have his name placed above him in the seniority list and is entitled to restoration of the selection grade. 8. After having gone through the order of the learned Single Judge, pleadings of the parties and the documents placed on record, we do not find ourselves convinced with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellants. He has referred to the order dated 22.8.1988 (Annexure P/4), vide which Charan Singh-respondent was appointed on regular basis with effect from 1.4.1985 and the order dated 9.10.1988 (Annexure P/5), vide which he (Charan Singh-respondent) was appointed on regular basis with effect from 1.1.1980 instead of 15.9.1982. The other Clerks, mentioned in the order Annexure P/4, were appointed on regular basis with effect from 15.9.1982. As per remarks recorded in that order, Charan Singh respondent was not regularized with effect from 15.9.1982, as his over all service record did not fall in the category of “good” and he had secured 50% good reports after the year 1984-1985 and, as such, his service record became good from 1984-1985. 9. It is pertinent to note that the case of the parties is being governed by notification dated 3.1.1983. This notification deals with the regularization of the adhoc employees holding Class-III posts for a minimum period of two years as on 31.12.1979. The services of those adhoc employees were to be made regular, provided they fulfilled the conditions mentioned therein. As per one of those conditions, the work and conduct of the adhoc employees proposed to be regularized should be of an overall good category. It was in pursuance of that notification that order Annexure P/4 was issued, vide which Charan Singh respondent was appointed on LPA No. 161 of 2011 6 regular basis with effect from 1.4.1985, as his service record became good after 1984-1985. Subsequently order Annexure P/5 was issued and he, alongwith similarly situated clerks, was appointed on regular basis with effect from 1.1.1980, on the ground that they had completed two years of service on 31.12.1979. They were absorbed with effect from 1.1.1979 and it was in view of their seniority that they were regularized with effect from 1.1.1980. The petitioner was absorbed with effect from 1.3.1979 and, as such, was junior to them and was appointed on regular basis on 15.9.1982. Therefore, he cannot claim seniority over and above these non-official respondents and a correct finding was recorded to that effect by the learned Single Judge. It was in view of the fixing of the seniority of the private respondents above the petitioner that the selection grade granted to him was rightly withdrawn. After the seniority was changed, the Department was justified in withdrawing that selection grade and no show cause was required to be issued before withdrawing thereof, as the petitioner had no legal right to that selection grade which had been wrongly granted to him. 10. The order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity and we do not find any ground to set aside the same. There is no merit in the appeal the same is hereby dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (GURDEV SINGH ) JUDGE JUDGE August 29, 2011 prem