Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhagwan Dass vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 6 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144755
CWP-2617-2018
CWP-2846-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
219-2 cases
WP-2617-2018(O&M)
C
Date of decision: 06.11.2024
Bhagwan Dass
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CWP-2846-2022(O&M)
Karam Chand
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present: Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in both cases.
Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)
1. These cases involve similar issues and therefore, are being
disposedoftogetherbythiscommonjudgmentandthefactsarebeingderived
from CWP-2617-2018.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Patwari in the Revenue
Department, District Karnal and as such, joined on 21.10.1986. The Govt.
decidedtocarveoutanewDistrictKaithal,takingtheareafromtheRevenue
Districts of Karnal and Kurukshetra for that purpose, whichincludedvillage
Amin Patwari Circle where the petitioner was posted, by issuance of
Notification dated 17.10.1989,AnnexureP-3.Byvirtueoftheabove,hewas
placed at the tail end of thesenioritylistinthenewdistrict,takingawaythe
servicerenderedbyhiminDistrictKurukshetra,forwhichneitheranyconsent
nor option was taken from him, as is apparent from letter dated17.04.2013,
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144755
CWP-2617-2018
CWP-2846-2022 2
Annexure P-6 of Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, with regard to the
representation submitted by the petitioner, relevant of which reads thus:
" ...Earlier village Amin was in district Karnal and this
Patwari was deployed there. Later on this village was
transferredtodistrictKurukshetra. Neithertransferorders
of this employee were issued nor option was taken from
him.SeniorityisprovidedtootherPatwariseffectivefrom
the date of their transfer to this district."
3. Theaforesaidadministrativeactioncouldnotbetothedetriment
of the petitioner and cause prejudice insofar as his seniority position was
concerned. This Court in Suresh Kumar vs. State ofHaryanaandothers,
CWP-16618-2010, decided on 27.04.2012, to which no challenge was made
and the issue involved was ofplacingthepetitionertherein,aPatwari,atthe
bottom of the seniority list, despite the fact that his transfer was not on his
own request and consent, observed and held thus:
" I have considered the submissions made by the counsel
for the parties and have gone through the records of the
case.
Petitioner, admittedly, was appointed in District Sirsa as
Patwari on 19.12.1984 on regular basis. He continued to
workthereasaPatwariwhenvideorderdated21.05.1986
(Annexure P-1), he and some other persons were
transferred to different districts on administrative basis.
Petitioner, who was working in District Sirsa, was
transferred to District Ambala vide this order. He, in
compliance with the said order, joined as Patwari in
District Ambala. The seniority, when framed in District
Ambala, he found hisnameatthetail-endoftheseniority
list and he had lost his earlier service which he has
renderedinSirsaforthepurposeofseniority.Itwouldnot
beoutofwaytomentionherethatthetransferorderdated
21.05.1986 was issued by the respondents on their own
anditwasneitherontherequestofthepetitionernorwith
his consent. If that be the situation, the stand of the
respondentsthattheseniorityandthecadreofPatwariisa
districtcadreand,therefore,withthechangeofdistrict,the
cadre would change which would result in loosing the
seniority, would be correct only in a situation where an
employee opts for or makes a request for a transfer from
one district to the other. Present case is not of such a
nature. The transfer of the petitioner was ordered by the
respondents on administrative grounds. Petitionerwasnot
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144755
CWP-2617-2018
CWP-2846-2022 3
g iven an option neither was his consent obtained norwas
he given an opportunity to agitate against the transfer
orders. He, as a servant, followed the dictates of the
powerfulGovernmentwithnooptionsavailabletohim.He
joined in District Ambala from Sirsa. Under those
circumstances, petitioner cannot be deprived of his
seniorityfromthedateofhisinitialappointment.Hiscadre
hasbeenchangednotonhisvolitionbutatthedictatesand
directionoftherespondents.Accordingly,theclaimofthe
petitioner for taking his date of appointment into
considerationforfixinghisseniorityinthedistrictcadreat
Ambala and thereafter in Yamuna Nagar where presently
he is posted after the bifurcation of the District Ambala
intoDistrictsAmbalaandYamunaNagar,isfullyjustified.
His right of claim ofsenioritycannotbeobliteratedbyan
act,overwhichhehadnocontrolandhehadnooptionbut
to comply with the dictates of the mighty State.
Inthesecircumstances,thepresentwritpetitionisallowed.
Adirectionisissuedtotherespondentstofixtheseniority
ofthepetitionerinDistrictYamunaNagartakinghisinitial
date of appointment to be his date of joining the cadrein
Yamuna Nagar i.e. 19.12.1984. Petitioner shall also be
entitledtoallconsequentialbenefits,whichmayflowfrom
granting him the correct seniority as per the directions
issuedbythisCourt.Theconsequentialbenefits,ifany,for
which the petitioner is held entitled to now, begrantedto
him within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order."
4. Relying upon the aforesaid, the respondents themselves in the
caseofoneRamCharan,whowasalsoworkingasaPatwaributhadnotbeen
grantedthebenefitofseniorityfromthedateofjoining,onthesamepremise
as of the present case, was given the benefit of promotion from 28.11.1984
vide order dated 20.07.2017, therelevant paras whereofread thus:
" Since the Cadre of the Patwari happens to be District
wise. Therefore, in caseanyPatwarijoinhisdutiesatany
otherDistrictaftertransfer,hisseniorityisconsideredfrom
the date of joining at new District. Therefore,seniorityto
Sh. Ramcharan was given from the date of his joining in
District Kurukshetra. Thereafter, upon allocating Kaithal
Districthissenioritywasconsideredascorrectandonthis
basis promotion wasgrantedtohimasKanungo.Keeping
in view of above the representation of Sh. Ramcharan
dated 13.03.2014 after consideration was filed vide
reminder of Directorate Sr. No. 11963 dated 02.09.15.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144755
CWP-2617-2018
CWP-2846-2022 4
gainst the above mentioned orders of Director Land
A
Records, Haryana, Sh. Ramcharan has submitted
representation to this office on dated 11.12.2015 and
requested for granting benefit of seniority in respect of
services performed at District and Rohtak, also requested
that prior totakingfinaldecisionuponhisapplicationand
representationanopportunityofpersonalhearingmayalso
be afforded to him.
Whereby the Government vide letter dated 06.01.2016
asked the Director, Land Records Haryana for above
sending mentioned representation of Sh. Ram Charan
Kanungo along with their remarks and recommendation.
Director Land Records, Haryana vide letter dated
16.03.2016 while sending their remarks and finding no
merits stated that same is liable to be filed.
Sh. Ramcharan, Kanungo in connection to his
representation dated 11.12.2015 he was heard personaly
examination of on dated 24.05.201. Upon the record
submittedbyconcernedoffices,ittranspiredthatselection
of Sh. Ramcharan was made as Patwari in the year 1984
and he was allotted District Rohtak andhewasappointed
in District Rohtak on dated 28.11.1984. Thereafter, vide
reminder issued by Director, Land records, Haryana Sr.
No. S-2/T/14636-37 dated 16.10.1985 his transfer was
made from Rohtak to District Kurukshetra and Sh.
RamcharanjoinedonthepostofPatwariatKurukshetraon
dated 24.04.1986.
But it is nowhere clear from above mentioned orders of
Directorthattheseorderswerepassedupontheapplication
filed by Sh. Ramcharan the then Patwari nor it is cleared
fromtherecordsubmittedbyconcernedofficesthatorders
in respect of Sh. Ramcharam was passed upon his
applicationbytheDirectorfromDistrictRohtaktoDistrict
Kurukshetra. It appears that the Director has passed the
orders No. S-2/T/14636-37 dated 16.10.1985 on
Administrative basis.
Apart from that upon examination of record it transpired
that in similar like case i.e. CivilWritPetitionNo.16618
of 2010 Suresh Kumar Versus State of Haryana the
Hon'ble High Court has passed following orders ondated
27.04.2012:-
""Inthesecircumstances,thepresentwritpetitionis
allowed. A direction is issued to therespondentsto
fixtheseniorityofthepetitionerinDistrictYamuna
Nagartakinghisinitialdateofappointmenttobehis
date of joining the cadre in Yamuna Nagar i.e.
19.12.1984. Petitioner shall also be entitled to all
consequential benefits, which may flow from
granting him the correct seniority as per the
directions issued by this Court. The consequential
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144755
CWP-2617-2018
CWP-2846-2022 5
enefits, if any, for which the petitioner is held
b
entitledtonow,begrantedtohimwithinaperiodof
three months from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order."
Therefore, as per the situationdescribedtheapplicantand
upon examination of record and keeping in view of the
orderspassedbyHon'bleHighCourtinCivilWritPetition
No.16618of2010titledasSureshKumarVersusStateof
Haryana, I Director General Land Record, Haryana while
cancelling the orders dated 02.09.15, hereby pass the
orders to grant benefit of promotion to Sh. Ramcharan
KanungofromthedateofhisjoiningasPatwariatRohtak
i.e. from dated 28.11.1984."
5. LearnedStatecounselmakesareferencetothewrittenstatement
and states that therewasanimpliedconsentthatthepetitioneroptedtowork
inKurukshetra,however,despiteherbesteffortswasunabletocontrovertthe
factual position involved in the aforesaid cases or draw out any distinctive
aspects in the aforementioned order and judgment orcite any contrary law.
6. In view of the above, the present petitions are disposed of in
terms of the judgment inSuresh Kumar(supra).
7. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected
cases.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
0 6.11.2024
Hemant
hether speaking/reasoned
W : es / No
Y
Whether reportable : Yes / No
5 of 5
