Swarn Singh & ORS v. State Of Punjab & ORS
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1.
Date of Decision: August 22, 2016 SWARN SINGH AND OTHERS .....Appellants
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Respondents 2.
LPA-84-2016 (O&M) KULBIR SINGH AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA
Present:
Mr.G.S.Bhatia, Advocate for the apepllants ........
SURYA KANT, J.
[1] This order shall dispose of LPA Nos.226 of 2016 (Swarn Singh and others vs State of Punjab) and 84 of 2016 (Kulbir Singh and others vs State of Punjab and others), as both have arisen out of the order dated 27.11.2015 whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition in which the appellants and some other ex-employees of Nagar Panchayat Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran sought their reinstatement in service. [2] Briefly stated the facts, as extracted from CWP No.5898-2004 (LPA No.226 of 2016), are that the appellants were appointed by Nagar Panchayat, Bhikhiwind as Clerks/Octroi Clerks on contract basis. One of
-2them was appointed as a `Typist-Clerk'. They were engaged on daily wages on different dates in the years 1993 and 1995, respectively. Nagar Panchayat, Bhikhiwind is said to have passed Resolution No. 12/97 on 10.06.1997 regularizing the services of employees working on daily wages. As soon as that resolution was passed, the Deputy Director, Urban Local Bodies Department intervened and stayed its operation on 23.06.1997 for the reason that there was a complete ban imposed by State Government on creation of new posts. Thereafter, State Government issued instructions to all the Executive Officers of Municipalities including Nagar Panchayat Bhikhiwind on 29.06.1998 to the effect that no posts were to be created and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no ad hoc appointees were to be regularised.
[3] In disregard to the Government instructions, the Nagar Panchayat, Bhiwkhiwind is said to have regularised services of its daily wage employees on 11.06.1999 followed by another batch of regular appointments on 14.06.1999. These orders of regular appointments were passed on the basis of another resolution of Nagar Panchayat dated 20.04.1999 whereby the President of Municipal Committee-cum-Nagar Panachayat secured an authorization in his favour to make appointment on the posts of Clerks and Sewadars etc. Yet another resolution No.26A/99 was passed on 01.06.1999 appointing 49 more persons including some of the appellants on the posts of Clerks and 25 persons on the posts of Sewadars. Appointment Letters were issued to all these persons and their Medical Fitness was also got verified and all of them were asked to join on regular basis. [4] As soon as the State Government came to know about the above-
-3stated resolutions and wholesome appointments, the Regional Deputy Director, Urban Local Bodies, Amritsar, in exercise of powers under Section 232 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, suspended operation of the orders passed by President of Nagar Panchayat. On the very next day the State Government also passed the order dated 02.07.1999 whereby the Nagar Panchayat was de-notified, i.e. it stood dissolved. [5] The Government decision dated 02.07.1999 de-notifying the Nagar Panchayat Bhikhiwind was challenged before this Court in a writ petition which was allowed on 13.10.1999. However, the judgment of this Court did not last long as its operation was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 08.05.2000 in SLP No.3670 of 2000.
[6] It appears that as soon as the stay was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellants were treated to have been relieved from their duties as admittedly no salary/wages were paid to them and they were not allowed to work.
[7] In the year 2010, the State Government resolved to reconstitute a new Nagar Panchayat/Municipal Committee Bhikhiwind and once the new Municipality was notified, the appellants approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondents to permit them to join their respective duties in the newly constituted Municipal Committee Bhikhiwind. They also raised their claim for back wages.
[8] The writ petitions having been dismissed by learned Single Judge, these intra-Court appeals have been preferred. [9] We have heard learned counsel for the appellants at a considerable length and gone through the record.
-4- [10] It is an undeniable fact that the elected President of Nagar Panchayat-cum-Municipality indulged in making large scale recruitments in the Municipality without getting a single post sanctioned from the State Government. The Nagar Panchayat was neither in a financial position to pay salary nor it had augmented its resources. Rather, with the abolition of octroi, no income was left with the Municipality to pay salary to the staff, yet the appointments were made despite categoric instructions issued by the State Government not to create any new post or employ any person or regularise the services of daily wager employees.
[11] Though the half hearted claim was made that the posts were advertised or any Selection Committee was constituted, but the manner in which selection process was carried out, speaks in volume that it was a wholesome back door entry in public appointment at the instance of the then President of the Municipality.
[12] However, the so called resolution authorizing the President to make appointments to the posts of Clerks or Sewadars had been suspended by the authorities in exercise of their statutory powers and such orders were never challenged either by the President or the appellants before any statutory Forums or a Court of law. Once those resolutions are deemed to be nonexistent in the eyes of law, the President stood stripped off the so called powers grabbed by him through self styled resolution(s). [13] The entire recruitment process is directly in the teeth of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as the appointments were made through questionable means. Learned Single Judge in exercise of his discretionary jurisdiction has rightly declined to issue the desired writ.
-5- [14] The Constitution of Municipal Committee in the year 2010 did not confer any fresh cause of action to the appellants. Their claim is otherwise belated and stale and their writ petitions could be rejected outrightly on the ground of delay and laches as there is nothing on record to suggest that they were ever allowed to perform duties except for some days in the year 1999 when they were appointed in collusion and connivance with the then President of the Municipality.
[15] For the reasons aforestated, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order under appeal.
[16] Dismissed.
( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE August 22, 2016 ( SUDIP AHLUWALIA ) meenuss JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether Reportable :
Yes/No