Dismissed

K.K.Jhamb v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Dec 2008CWP/9953/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to absorb him as Junior Engineer from Haryana State minor irrigation corporation deputation. High Court dismissed petition citing pending disciplinary proceedings and inability to issue No Objection Certificate, distinguishing case where no such proceedings existed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to absorb petitioner from regular service granted to corporation refused with dismissal of proceedings.

K.K.Jhamb Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No. 9953 of 2002 Date of decision: 11^th December, 2008

K.K. Jhamb

… Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶9

Present: Mr. Vijay Takki, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Jayender Singh Chandail, Addl. AG Haryana for the State.

¶11

Mr. N.D. Kalra, Advocate and Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶12

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Present writ petition has been filed praying that respondent No.1 and 2, i.e. State of Haryana be directed to absorb the petitioner as Junior Engineer from the date his juniors were absorbed.

¶14

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Corporation’) on 5^th June, 1975. Respondent No.2, Engineer in Chief, PWD Public Health Branch, Panchkula issued a circular for taking Junior Engineers, employed in the Corporation, on deputation. Petitioner applied, appeared before the interview committee and was selected and was issued appointment letter on 29^th May, 1998 and he joined the State of Haryana on 29^th May, 1998. On 7^th July, 1999, respondent No.2 Engineer in Chief, PWD Public Health Branch, Panchkula issued another circular to the effect that those employees, who were working on deputation, can be absorbed on regular basis. Petitioner submitted his consent along with requisite affidavit.

¶15

¶16

Civil Writ Petition No. 9953 of 2002

¶17

Petitioner had to obtain a No Objection Certificate. At that time, Rs.2,48,140/- were outstanding against the petitioner. Before the No Objection Certificate could be issued, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner.

¶18

As per the statement of allegations, annexed as Annexure P-6, petitioner could not account for various articles and he was fastened with the liability of Rs.45,768.05. Counsel for the petitioner states that the amount had been deposited. But before the disciplinary proceedings could be finally adjudicated, respondent No.3 Corporation had taken a decision to close the Corporation. Thereafter, a list was prepared and as per the seniority, Junior Engineers working in the Corporation were to be adjusted/ absorbed in various Government Departments.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon ‘Amar Singh v. State of Haryana’ Civil Writ Petition No.9579 of 2002, decided on 4^th December, 2008. The case of the petitioner is not covered by the ratio of that judgment, as in the case of Amar Singh (supra), no disciplinary proceedings were pending and he was continuing to discharge his duties with the State of Haryana since the date of his deputation to the Government.

¶20

In the present case, even though order of the status-quo had been passed by this Court, petitioner was relieved from the Government service earlier thereto because of disciplinary proceedings. Due to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, rightly, No Objection Certificate was not issued by the Corporation.

¶21

Therefore, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner and the present writ petition is dismissed.

¶22

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE

¶23

December 11, 2008 rps

K.K.Jhamb v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.Jhamb v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Inder Pal Vs Gopal Krishan

Manjit Singh Vs Gopal Krishan

Jai Parkash Vs Gopal Krishan

Vijay Kumar and Anr. Vs Panna Lal

Khazan Singh and Ors. Vs Prithvi Singh Sharma

Sham Lal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.