Civil Writ Petition No. 9590 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 9590 of 1990 Date of decision: 12.11.2010 Udey Singh Charge-man, PWD Public Health, Division (Construction), Faridabad. ..... Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Haryana through Secretary PWD (Public Health,Chandigarh). 2. Superintending Engineer, PWD (Public Health) Sonepat Circle, Sonepat. 3. Executive Engineer, PWD Public Health, Division (Construction), Faridabad. 4. Superintending Engineer PWD (Public Health)Ambala. 5. Jagdish Lal Assistant Foreman, PWD Public Health Division, Hodal, District Faridabad. 6. Sukhan Lal, Assistant Foreman, PWD Public Health Division Sonepat. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present:- Mr.D.D. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sukhwinder Singh Nara, DAG, Haryana, for the respondents-State. ----- Civil Writ Petition No. 9590 of 1990 -2- M. Jeyapaul, J(Oral). Aggrieved with the promotion granted to two other co-employees namely Mr. K.L. Nagia and Upadhayaya as Assistant Foreman, allegedly ignoring the seniority of the petitioner, the petitioner has come forward with the writ petition praying for writ of mandamus, commanding respondent nos. 1 to 4 to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Foreman from the date when the juniors to him were promoted to the said post. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Pump Attendant in the Public Health Department on 25.09.1962 in the Workcharge establishment. He was later on promoted as Assistant Driver (Class IV) on 13.06.1963. Thereafter, he got another promotion for the post of Pump Driver (Class III) on Workcharge basis w.e.f. 14.4.1967. He was further promoted as Electrical Chargeman and subsequently as Assistant Foreman (Elect.). 3. The contention of the petitioner is that Mr. K.L. Nagia and Upadhayaya, who were juniors to him, were promoted to the cadre of Assistant Foreman ignoring his seniority. Civil Writ Petition No. 9590 of 1990 -3- 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the juniors of the petitioner have been promoted by respondent nos. 1 to 4 without any rhyme or reason completely ignoring the entitlement of the petitioner to be promoted to the cadre of Assistant Foreman. 5. In contrast, the learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondents-State would submit that the petitioner entered into Class III category only w.e.f. 14.4.1967 as a Pump Driver, whereas Mr. K.L. Nagia entered into Class III category as Fitter w.e.f. 15.07.1964. It is his further submission that the petitioner entered into electrical service whereas Mr. K.L. Nagia was already in the mechanical side. It is his further submission that the writ petition filed by the petitioner without impleading the necessary parties namely Mr. K.L. Nagia and Upadhayaya, deserves to be dismissed. 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that the department had promoted Mr. K.L. Nagia and Upadhayaya overtaking him in the matter of promotion to the post of Assistant Foreman ignoring his seniority. Mr. K.L. Nagia and Upadhayaya having been promoted to the cadre of Assistant Foreman, have started serving in that capacity. If the plea of the petitioner is accepted and a direction is issued to promote him as Assistant Foreman over and above Mr. K.L. Nagia and Civil Writ Petition No. 9590 of 1990 -4- Upadhayaya, the latter would be definitely aggrieved. Therefore as rightly pointed out by the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents-State, the writ petition as prayed for without impleading the proper and necessary parties namely Mr. K.L. Nagia and Upadhayaya deserves to be dismissed in limine. 7. Coming to the merit of the claim of the petitioner, it is found that the petitioner has entered into the electrical side of the Public Health Department whereas Mr. K.L. Nagia has entered into mechanical side of the same department. It has been demonstrated by the State that the petitioner entered into category III even in the electrical side only on 14.4.1967 whereas Mr. K.L. Nagia has entered into category III in the mechanical side w.e.f. 15.07.1964 itself. Therefore by no stretch of imagination it can be concluded that the petitioner was senior to Mr. K.L. Nagia and Upadhayaya. On merit also the petitioner has failed to make out a case on both grounds, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There is no order as to costs. (M. Jeyapaul) Judge 12.11.2010 dinesh Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? (Yes/No)