Allowed

Jagan Nath and Anr. v. State of Hry. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Feb 2008CWP/17898/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners, promoted to Taxation Inspector, were reverted to ministerial cadre. The High Court held that their option to retain lien was validly exercised but not officially placed on record due to inadvertence. The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the lower order with a direction to decide the representation afresh within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed, order dated 18.9.2006 set aside, directions to authorities to decide representation afresh within two months.

Jagan Nath and Anr. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

CWP No.17898/2006 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

CWP No.17898/2006 Date of Decision: 4.2.2008.

¶4

Jagan Nath and another.

¶5

............. Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and others.

¶8

..............Respondents.

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶10

Present:- Sh.Madan Pal, Advocate for the petitioners. Sh.Harish Rathee, Sr.D.A.G.Haryana for the respondents. Sh.Parminder Singh,Advocate for private respondents. *****

¶11

JASBIR SINGH, J.(ORAL)

¶12

By filing this writ petition, the petitioners prayed that a writ of certiorari be issued to quash order dated 18.9.2006 ( P-10), vide which their representation, to revert them to the ministerial cadre, was rejected.

¶13

It is an admitted fact that the petitioners were working as Senior Scale Stenographers when they were promoted as Taxation Inspectors in the month of August,1996. They were confirmed against that post on 27.9.2004. Petitioners and similarly situated employees raised an objection that their lien on the earlier post cannot be terminated without their consent. Some of them came to this Court by filing CWP Nos. 16037, 17051, 17666, 18675 and 19221 of 2004. In the writ petition filed by Ramesh Kumar Bateja i.e. CWP No. 19221/2004, by taking note of a fact that similarly situated Taxation Inspectors were reverted to the ministerial cadre, that writ petition was disposed of and it was directed that the case of the petitioners, in the above mentioned writ petitions, be also considered in the light of the decision taken with regard to other similarly situated employees.

¶14

CWP No.17898/2006 2

¶15

Consequent to the orders mentioned above, letter dated 11.11.2005 (Annexure P-5) was issued to all the employees seeking their options whether they intend to continue to serve as Taxation Inspectors or they want their reversion to the ministerial cadre. In the letter referred to above, it was mentioned that the necessary options be exercised within 15 days. Perusal of document Annexure P-6 dated 6.12.2005 indicates that the letter was received by one of the petitioners namely Gopi Chand Sedha on 28.11.2005. By writing letter dated 6.12.2005 (Annexure P-6) he wanted to get some information which was not supplied to him. He again wrote a letter dated 9.12.2005 (P-7) stating that he wish to retain lien in the parent cadre. When action was not taken on the option exercised by the petitioners they came to this Court by filing CWP No. 15534/2005 and on 29.9.2005, above said writ petition was disposed of by issuing directions to the respondents to decide pending representations of the petitioners by passing a speaking order. Accordingly, order Annexure P-10 dated 18.9.2006 was passed. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:-

¶16

“In compliance of the order dated 29.9.05 passed in C.W.P. No.15534 of 2005 and also passed in various Writ Petitions 16037, 17051, 17666, 18675 and 19221 of 2004, orders dated 23.1.2006 were issued and the persons who were given their options for reversion were reverted on their originals posts in the Ministerial Cadre. The petitioners in the present Writ Petition have not submitted their option inspite of two letters dated 11.11.2005 and 28.12.2005, respectively. It is presumed that the petitioners are willing to remain in the Inspectorate cadre and did not claim their lien in the Ministerial Cadre from which they were promoted and the representations of the petitioners dated 4.10.2004 (Annexure P-6 and P-7) are hereby rejected

¶17

CWP No.17898/2006 3

¶18

accordingly.”

¶19

It is apparent from reading of the impugned order that their representation was dismissed on the ground that despite opportunity given the petitioners have failed to exercise their option to retain lien in the parent cadre. After going through the documents Annexure P-7, P9A and P-18, we are satisfied that the petitioners, had exercised option which was sent to the competent authority by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Officer, Faridabad on 12.12.2005. May be due to some inadvertence that letter was not communicated and placed before the competent authority when order Annexure P-10 was passed.

¶20

In view of the facts mentioned above, we allow this writ petition and set aside order Annexure P-10, directing the authorities concerned to decide their representations afresh. While doing so, reference may be made to documents Annexures P-5, P7, P9A and P-18 on the record of this case. Needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the authority concerned comes to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to some relief the same be granted to them forthwith.

¶21

Nothing said herein above shall be taken as a circumstance against any of the private respondents.

¶22

Judge

¶23

4.2.2008 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge

Jagan Nath and Anr. v. State of Hry. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagan Nath and Anr. v. State of Hry. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahender Singh Vs State of Hry. and Ors.

Bijender Vs State of Hry. and Ors.

Inder Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Mohit Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Satish Chhabra Vs District and Sessions Judge and Ors.

Ramesh Chander and Ors. Vs Addl. Registrar (Credit) Coop. and Ors.