Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasbilr Singh vs State Of Punjab on 5 April, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046741
CWP-15697-1998 1 2024:PHHC:046741
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
204
CWP-15697-1998
Decided on: 05.04.2024
Jasbir Singh and others
. . . Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Akshita Chauhan, DAG, Punjab
Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 3 to 22.
*****
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
1. This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the impugned order dated 01.09.1998 (Annexure P-15) passed by
respondent No. 1, whereby the claim of the petitioners to be treated as regular
appointees w.e.f. the dates of their original appointments as Junior Draftsman has
been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per the order
dated 23.05.1980 (Annexure P-1), the President of India was pleased to constitute
the Departmental Selection Committee for the Irrigation Department for the
recruitment to Subordinate Services carrying an initial pay within the range of
Rs.325 and 699 per month (both inclusive) and since specific categories were
excluded and the said excluded categories did not include the category of Tracers,
on which post the petitioners were working, as well as of Draftsmen and Junior
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046741
CWP-15697-1998 2 2024:PHHC:046741
Engineers and thus, all three were to be selected by the said Departmental
Selection Committee. It is submitted that vide advertisement dated 19.02.1981
(Annexure P-2), the Authorities invited applications for appointment to the post of
Draftsmen and Tracers and in pursuance of the same, the petitioners applied for
the post of Tracers and were thereafter, selected by the Departmental Selection
Committee and were appointed as Tracers (Temporary) and the appointment letters
issued in the case of petitioners appointed as Tracers (Annexure P-4) was on the
same terms as those issued in favour of the Draftsmen dated 27.01.1982
(Annexure P-6). It is submitted that thereafter, the Draftsmen as well the Tracers
were regularized but in the case of Draftsmen, a decision was taken that they
would be treated as regular employees from the date of the initial appointment,
whereas, the said benefit was not given to the petitioners who were appointed as
Tracers, although, the petitioners were similarly placed as the said Draftsmen on
all aspects. It is submitted that the petitioners, on the ground of parity, deserve to
be treated as regularly appointed from the date of their initial appointment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has next submitted that the
petitioners have since retired and thus, at any rate, the temporary period of service
rendered by the petitioners prior to the regularization of their services is required
to be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits and in
support of his arguments has relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this
Court in Kesar Chand Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1988 P&H 265. It is submitted
that no specific decision regarding the said 2 aspects has been taken by the
respondent-Authorities.
4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has referred to an order
dated 19.12.2014 to argue that the case of the Draftsmen selected by the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046741
CWP-15697-1998 3 2024:PHHC:046741
Departmental Selection Committee is not on the same footing as that of the
Draftsmen who were promoted from the posts of Tracers. It is further submitted
that the Tracers are not similarly placed as the Draftsmen because the post of
Draftsmen was excluded from the purview of the S.S.S. Board.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in rebuttal, has submitted that the
said decision is not with respect to the case of the petitioners since the petitioners
were never promoted to the post of Draftsmen and have retired as Tracers and the
case of the petitioners is that they are similarly placed as the Draftsmen having
been selected by the same Departmental Selection Committee and should be given
the same benefit as has been given to the Draftsmen. It is submitted that at any
rate, the respondent-authorities are required to take a specific decision on the same
two aspects raised by the petitioners.
6. Learned State counsel has submitted that the competent authority of
the State of Punjab would take a specific decision on the said two aspects.
7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused
the paperbook.
8. It is not in dispute that no specific decision has been taken by the
respondent-Authorities on the issue as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the
same relief as has been granted to the Draftsmen, i.e. being treated as regular
appointees from the date of their original appointment, on the ground that the
petitioners were appointed as Tracers by the same Departmental Selection
Committee as were the Draftsmen and the terms and conditions as contained in the
appointment letter of the Draftsmen were the same as that of the petitioners.
Moreover, the aspect as to whether once the petitioners had retired from service,
then services rendered by them on temporary basis prior to their being regularized
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046741
CWP-15697-1998 4 2024:PHHC:046741
are to be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits, is
also required to be considered by the respondent-Authorities.
9. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the present
Civil Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority of
respondent No. 1-State to consider both the abovesaid aspects within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the present order and in
case, the competent Authority of respondent No. 1 is of the view that either of the
two pleas raised by the petitioners are found to be meritorious, then the competent
authority of respondent No. 1 would grant necessary relief to the petitioners as
expeditiously as possible and in case, the competent authority of respondent No. 1
is of the opinion that the said pleas raised by the petitioners are not meritorious
then a speaking order rejecting the same be passed within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of the present order.
10. It is made clear that the plea of the petitioners with respect to payment
of interest is kept open, as the same would be dependent upon the decision taken
by the respondent-authorities and its legality.
(VIKAS BAHL)
05.04.2024 JUDGE
Mehak
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
4 of 4
