Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tej Singh vs State Of Punjab on 19 January, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007084
202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
2024:PHHC:007084
CWP-12898-2000 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 19.01.2024
Tej Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Present None for the petitioner.
Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
***
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
1. No one appears for the petitioner.
2. This writ petition is pending since 2000 and after 2019 no one
has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has prayed to treat
him senior to respondent No.4, on the post of Naib Tehsildar on the ground
that he was promoted temporarily on 01.12.1992 as Naib Tehsildar and was
enlisted in Register-C on 21.10.1994 while respondent No.4 was enlisted in
Register-A on 16.02.1993 under the priority category of handicapped. After
the petitioner was promoted as Naib Tehsildar on 01.12.1992, respondent
No.4 was also promoted on 12.01.1993 and he joined on 14.01.1993. Thus
the petitioner claims that he should be treated senior to respondent No.4 in
the seniority list circulated on 11.02.1994. However, the petitioner was
shown at Sr. No.17 amongst officiating Naib Tehsildars while respondent
No.4 was not shown in the said seniority list. The respondent No.4 was
physically handicapped person with 65% disability and the same was reduced
to 60% subsequently. In the seniority list published on 09.03.1998, petitioner
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007084
CWP-12898-2000 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:007084
was shown at Sr. No.2 while respondent No.4 was shown at Sr. No.3 in the
order of seniority. To the said seniority list, representation was submitted by
respondent No.4 wherein he had alleged that the petitioner should be granted
seniority w.e.f. 21.10.1994 and not w.e.f. 01.12.1992, as no deeming
enlistment could have been done. The said representation was considered by
the respondents and was rejected vide order dated 19.05.1998 by the
Commissioner. Again it appears that the Commissioner has reexamined the
matter and took a decision that there is no provision under the rules for
deeming enlistment and the petitioner would have to be treated as promoted
from 21.10.1994 and not the deemed date granted as 01.12.1992.
4. The petitioner has submitted that in CWP-3894-1996 and CWP-
5011-1993, decided on 10.01.1997, the deemed date of petitioner's
promotion as 01.12.1993, had been upheld. Thereafter, the petitioner
preferred CWP-16452-1998, decided on 21.12.1999, wherein the petitioner
and respondent No.4 were directed to appear before the Financial
Commissioner, who would dispose of the matter in accordance with law.
Whereafter the Financial Commissioner, passed an order on 07.08.2000,
holding that the petitioner could not have been given deemed appointment
from 01.12.1992, as there was no regular post of District Revenue
Accountant on 01.12.1992 and further respondent No.4's appointment on the
physically handicapped category did not require an independent
advertisement and the appointment was against quota of physically
handicapped. He further held that the petitioner is entitled to seniority w.e.f.
21.10.1994 i.e. the date of his regular appointment.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007084
CWP-12898-2000 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:007084
5. The petitioner further submits that there was a vacancy available
as on 01.12.1992 and on that basis the petitioner had been promoted on
temporary basis. He was promoted against the 18th roster point and therefore,
submits that the Financial Commissioner committed an error in deciding the
representation in favour of respondent No.4. The petitioner further prays for
granting him all consequential benefits. It is further submitted that once this
Court had already passed an order in favour of the petitioner, there was no
occasion to again disturb the appointments.
6. The respondents have filed their reply and have submitted that
appointment of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.12.1992 was contingent upon
availability of post of Naib Tehsildar, falling to the quota of District Revenue
Accountant and he therefore has no right of seniority from that date. He was,
thus, promoted in excess of quota available for the employees seeking
promotion. It is stated that an order was passed on 20.01.1993, which
clarified that the petitioner will not claim quota under Rule 16 of the Punjab
Naib Tehsildar Class-III) Service Rules, 1984, as he was promoted against
the quota available for Kanugo and since no Kanugo was available,
promotion was granted on ad hoc basis. The respondents have also pointed
out that as per Rule 16 of the Rules, 1984 note, seniority of a person
appointed on provisional basis was to be determined as and when he was
regularly appointed.
7. This Court having noticed the respective submissions finds that
the petitioner was regularly appointed/promoted on the post of Naib
Tehsildar on 21.10.1994, whereupon his name was entered in Register-C
under Rule 8 of the Rules, 1984 for his deemed enlistment. Thus, he would
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007084
CWP-12898-2000 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:007084
be treated to have been regularly appointed from 01.12.1992. Since the quota
of Kanugo was not available, it cannot be said that there was no vacant post
available on the said date merely because the said post was to be originally
filled by direct recruitment, a person promoted against a substantive vacant
post would be entitled to claim his seniority from the said date. This Court
also notices that in the earlier seniority list (supra), the petitioner has always
been shown above respondent No.4 and the said seniority list was never
challenged by respondent No.4. Hence, no change in the inter se seniority
could have been done as their inter se seniority stood crystallized.
8. The judgment passed by this Court in CWP-3894-1996 and
CWP-5011-1993, on 10.01.1997, granting similar benefit to one Baru Ram,
who was also posted as Naib Tehsildar against the vacancy meant for the
Kanugo and was therefore treated above the respondents therein, a different
approach had been adopted in the case of the petitioner, which cannot be
allowed. In view thereof, the petitioner cannot be said to have been wrongly
allowed seniority from 01.12.1992.
9. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed and is
accordingly allowed. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential
benefits.
10. All pending misc. application(s) also stand disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE
19.01.2024
rajesh
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007084
4 of 4
