Sajjan Singh v. The Haryana State Cooperative Agriculture And Rural Development Bank Limited And Others

CWP No.14619 of 2019 {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.14619 of 2019 Date of decision:19.07.2019 Sajjan Singh ... Petitioner Vs.

The Haryana State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Mr. Vijay Kumar Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral) Challenge in present writ petition is to the impugned order dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure P-1) whereby a decision has been taken to adjust the surplus staff of Haryana State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Bank Branch Dadri (HSCARDB) in other Cooperative Institutions as well as other State Government Departments/Boards/Corporations. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner as per the medical certificate, having 70% disability owing to amputation of right leg. The aforementioned order tantamounts to illegal and arbitrary and therefore, same cannot be done without obtaining consent. In support of contention, relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court render in State of Punjab and others Vs. Inder Singh and others decided on 14.12.1997 and Rajasthan High Court in Surendra Bijawat Vs. State of Rajasthan 2002(3) SLR 48. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and appraised SAVITA KADIAN 2019.07.23 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

CWP No.14619 of 2019 {2} the paper book. There is no pleading in the writ petition that there was controversy reference to the order dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure P-1) regarding surplus employees/staff in HSCARDB. The State Exchequer cannot be burdened for availing the actual inherent duties of the employees who have been rendered surplus.

It is not a matter of fact that there is already reservation for handicapped persons. Handicapness do not prevent a person from discharging the duties as he is already discharging. As regards obtaining consent, it was general observation. The aforementioned judgments pertained to interpretation of rules. No rule has been pointed that consent is sine qua non. Otherwise, it is not a case of consent but adjustment. No ground is made out for interference. Dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE July 19, 2019 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No SAVITA KADIAN 2019.07.23 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh