State Of Haryana v. Chhotu Ram
!
"# $ % & '
%(" ")
* %!
++++++,, --".!/ 0!+ ** 1 2 ++++++ !, ") ".!/ 3#
45 3+
3
!!!!
3
+ .5/
#
$
%$
&' ( )&&(
*
+#
%$
)( &, (''-
# .$ // +
$
) #
0
$
$
0
+
2 !// 12!//4 +
)) ( ('56 0
+
+! $
&) &' ('5)
7+
&) ' ('5)
-( &8 ('5- "
+
#
7+ #
#!9 ( $
$
'8-,!-:
)8 &8 ('5- 0
+ $
12!// +
)) &( ('56 # + $
- ;
$ ('55
0
+ $ <
$ + +
$
12!// # $ <
12!//
# $
12!// " $
! 4 +
0
12!//
+
12!// +
)) ( ('56 + , =
% + #
+
+ $ +
) &' ('5) #
7+
+
#
>$ #
# ( $
+
1 2!// )) &( ('56
+
12!// /
#
1 2!// + + + >? >$ 6((8!('
(- &8 ('56
+ +
1 2!//
+ $ #
+
12!//
+
-( () ('56 + # $ <
#
% ) &' ('5-
+ + $ <
+
%
)5 &6 ('5)
+ %
+
# + $ <
1 2!//
7
+
+
;
$
+
+
!
1. Whether the impugned order dated 22.1.1986 is illegal, nul and void? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for promotion ? OPP
3. Relief.
#
+
# .$ //
%$
)( &, (''-
$
%$
+ 0
+ +
+
.$
0
7$
3 5
:
*
*
+$
0
* "
+
'
Per contra, *
$ #
'
/
+
(&
%$ )( , (''-
#!.$ //
!
10. From the perusal of the plaint, it is observed that the plaintiff has claimed that he was promoted on the post of W.P.O.II with effect from 22&1&1986 in the regular scale of the post of W.P.O.II where as there is no such order by which it can be said that the plaintiff was promoted on the above post on 22&1&1986. From the perusal of the copy of order dated 22&1&1986, the copy of which is Ex.D1, it is observed that the additional duties of W.P.O&II were entrusted to the plaintiff. The additional duties given to the plaintiff vide impugned order were withdrawn vide order dated 13& 5&86 and the copy of office order is Ex.D2. From the perusal of the Ex. D4, it is observed that a note has been appended in the order year 1983, it is clear that no Τ.Α./D.A.
/joining time will be admissible to the plaintiff and as such it is proved that the plaintiff was transferred to the Public Health Sub Division, Mahendergarh on his own request. It is also pertinent to mention here that at the time of institution of the suit, the service of the plaintiff were not even regularised on the post of keyman and his services on the post of keyman were regularised in the year 1987. It is also pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff has not placed the seniority list on the file, by which, it can be established that the juniors have been promoted. The plaintiff withhold the necessary documents which were necessary for the proper adjudication of the case.
It is also pertinent to mention here that the civil court has very limited jurisdiction and the civil court can not direct the defendants for promotion of the plaintiff.
promotions are made on the basis of seniority&cum&merit and this fact is only decided by the concerned authorities/department. Seniority is not only the basis of the promotion. The civil court has no jurisdiction to direct the authorities to promote an employee and in these circumstances, the direction cannot be issued to the defendants for the promotion of the plaintiff and the court can only issue direction to consider the employee for promotion. Reliance is placed on Dharshan Singh applicant Vs. State of Punjab, respondent, 1993 (1) SCT 180. In view of the above discussion, I find no illegality in order dated 22&1&1986 and as well as there is no material by which it can be directed that the plaintiff is entitled for promotion. Both these issues are decided accordingly in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff." ((
# + "
%$ " /
()
%$
.$ ' ( )&&(
!
20. From the perusal of the case file it is clear that from the date of passing of order EX. Dl the plaintiff is working on the post of WPO&II and the above fact is corroborated by P&4 Hukam Chand J. E. and recommendation letter Ex. PW5/D in this regard. The defendants had taken a plea that vide order dated 13.5.1986 (EX.D2) work of WPO II was order to be withdrawn from the plaintiff and the said order was never acted upon by the defendants and the plaintiff continued to perform his duties as WPO&II. It will not be out of place to mention that no orders of this
sort were either conveyed to the plaintiff nor any intimation was sent to him and admittedly no show cause notice was even served before passing the impugned reversion order EX. D2 and EX. PW2/B which was necessary before passing any adverse order against the employee and on this score only the order EX.D2 is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. It is also clear that junior persons and similarly placed persons like Laxman Singh, Pardeep Kumar, Shyam Sunder Dev Karan, Om Parkash Ami Lal etc. have been regularised on the post of WPO&II after completing four years service but the plaintiff has been treated discriminately by the defendants on the plea that no vacant post of WPO&II is available although this plea of the defendants is falsified by the evidence placed on record and discussed in the foregoing para that plaintiff had been performing the duties of WPO&II since 22.1.1986 regularly and admittedly vide order dated 16.8.2000 during the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff was ordered to be promoted on the post of WPO&ΙΙ.
21. Even otherwise the plaintiff has been performing the duties of WPO&II since 22.1.1986 after passing of the order Ex.D1 but the salary of the said post was not allowed to him for which he is entitled. That the defendant had taken a new plea in evidence and not in written statement which evidence cannot be taken into consideration and plaintiff is transferred from another division vide order Ex.D2 on his own request. so for the purpose of seniority of the plaintiff to be counted from the date of the order of transfer and not from the date of appointment. Therefore, no junior
were regularised on the post of WPO&II. They also tender in evidence instruction EX. D3 and after perusal of the instructions it is clear that if a person is transferred from one division to another on his own request then authorities are bound to make note in this regard which is reproduced:& "That while issuing such transfer order it should be made absolutely clear in the order of transfer that the person transferred shall not be entitled to any benefit of past service in the new unit for the purposes of seniority in the new unit." But according to the instructions Ex.D3 as mentioned above, is also not included in transfer order EX.D4. so the plaintiff cannot be denied the benefit of his past service in previous suit.
It was further submitted that even otherwise there is no evidence on the file which shows that plaintiff was transferred at his own request except the note in transfer order EX.D4 "NO TA/DA/joining time will be admissible. So only on the ground of foregoing note it cannot be inferred that the plaintiff had been transferred vide order Ex.D4 at his own request in absence of his written request regarding transfer which has to be produced by the defendants in their evidence to establish their plea. It was further submitted that even otherwise the plaintiff also brought on file the service book of Laxman Singh who had been transferred from Bhiwani Division to Naranul Division in the year 1984 as work charge on his own request and his date of appointment is 3.12.1982. He was also ordered to be posted on WPO&II vide order dated 17.2.
regularised vide order dated 8.2.1990 on the post of WPO&II who is junior to the plaintiff on all account"
(-
# +
.$
$
.$
% + $
12!//
>?
9- +#
+ @
#
#
+
+
+
+
$ *
.$
# 5
(,
!
0
+
+! $ # ) ' ('5)
+ $ <
$ ('55
+ $
$
12!// )) ( ('56
4
$ $
12!// + + + 6((8!('
(- &8 ('56 >? >$
4
+
12!//
+
$
% +
12!//
+
12!// (6 &5 )&&&
:
/
% + $ <
12!//
>? 9!-
/
0
+ + @
+ @
#
#
+
?4
+
* "
$
+
$
(8 / +
#
+ $
$
12!//
%
+
+! $ # ) &' ('5)
12!// + $
)) &( ('56
+ + (- &8 ('56 6((8!('
+ $ <
$ ('55 "
0
# $ <
12!// +
)) &( ('56 +
$
+ (6
+
0
+
12!// (6 5 )&&& "
+$
(:
/ +
# /
+. " %$
&' &( )&&(
*
(5
+
+
#
# $
0
+ #
@
('
9 #
$ )&
.
3/
2# )) )&),
1 $0
1
# A