Disposed

Bikram Jeet Kumar v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Feb 2010CWP/17361/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge Writ Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of a petition challenging Gram Sewaks seniority list. The court directed the respondents to disclose merit details via RTI, consider objections within a month, and finalize promotions based on seniority-cum-merit principles.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to disclose merit details via RTI, consider objections within one month, correct the seniority list if required, make promotions based on seniority-cum-merit, and deem set aside r

Bikram Jeet Kumar Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

1 –

¶2

CWP No.17361 of 2008.doc

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No.17361 of 2008 Date of Decision: 19.02.2010

¶6

¶7

Bikram Jeet Kumar and others Petitioners

¶8

VS.

¶9

State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶12

¶13

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶15

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

¶17

Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioners

¶18

Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab

¶19

Mr. Ranjivan Singh, Advocate and Mr. Ripudaman Singh Roop, Advocate for respondents No.15 & 20

¶20

¶21

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)

¶22

(1). The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 4/7.05.2007 (Annexure P9) as well as the final seniority list of Gram Sewaks circulated vide Memo dated 07.01.2008 (Annexure P10).

¶23

(2). The undisputed facts are that on the recommendations of the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab, Gram Sewaks were appointed in the year 1982. The petitioners and

¶24

2 –

¶25

CWP No.17361 of 2008.doc

¶26

the private respondents are also amongst those Gram Sewaks.

¶27

(3). There were no statutory Service Rules to govern service conditions of Gram Sewaks in the year 1982, but later on the Punjab Department of Rural Development and Panchayats (Class-III) Service Rules, 1988 came into force. Rule 10 thereof, provides mode of determination of interse- seniority and reads as follows:-

¶28

“10. Seniority of members of the service. (i) The seniority inter se of members of the Service in each cadre shall be determined by the length of continuous service on a post in that cadre of the Service; Provided that in case the case of members recruited by direct appointment who join within the period specified in the order of appointment or within such period as may be extended from time to time by the appointing authority, subject to a maximum of four months from the date of order of appointment, the order of merit determined by the Board shall not be disturbed; Provided further that in case a candidate is permitted to join the Service after the expiry of the said period of four months in consultation with the Board his seniority shall be determined from the date he joins the Service;

¶29

Provided further that in case any candidate of the next selection has joined the Services before the candidate referred to in the preceding proviso joins, the candidate so referred shall be placed below all the candidates of the next selection who join with the time specified in the first proviso.

¶30

Provided further that in the case of two or more members appointed on the same date, their seniority shall be determined as follows;-

¶31

3 –

¶32

CWP No.17361 of 2008.doc

¶33

(a) a member recruited by direct appointment shall be senior to a member recruited otherwise;

¶34

(b) a member appointed by promotion shall be senior to a member appointed by transfer;

¶35

(c) in the case of members appointed by promotion or transfer, seniority shall be determined according to the seniority of such members in the appointments from which they were promoted or transferred; and

¶36

(d) in the case of members appointed by transfer from different cadres, their seniority shall be determined according to pay, preference being given to a member who was drawing a higher rate of pay in his previous appointment and if the rates of pay drawn are also the same; then by the length of their service in these appointments and if the length of such service; is also the same; then an older member shall be senior to a younger member.

¶37

Note: - Seniority of members appointed on purely provisional basis shall be determined as and when they are regular, appointment.”

¶38

(4).

¶39

(5).

¶40

There used to be, however, Executive Instructions over prior to 1982 issued by the State Government, inter alia, providing that inter-se- seniority of recommendees of Punjab Public Service Commissioner/Subordinate Services Selection Board shall be determined on the basis of their placement in the merit list.

¶41

The solitary question that arises for consideration in the present case is as to whether the inter se seniority of the directly-recruited Gram Sewaks is required to be determined on the basis of their

¶42

4 –

¶43

CWP No.17361 of 2008.doc

¶44

(6).

¶45

(7).

¶46

respective dates of joining or as per their inter se merit at the time of selection by the Board? There can indeed be no doubt that not only under the executive instructions issued by the State Government, from time to time, otherwise also it is consistent with the principles of just, fair and equality that inter-se- seniority of the direct recruits is determined on the basis of their placement in the merit list at the time of selection. Rule 10 of the 1988 Rules is also a re-statement of those very principles.

¶47

It appears from the stand taken by the respondents in their counter-affidavit that initially a tentative seniority list of Gram Sewaks circulated on 27.05.1986 (Annexure P2) was prepared on the basis of incidental circumstances like the ‘dates of joining’ instead of as per the ‘merit list’ prepared by the Selection Board at the time of their selection. However, after the 1988 Rules were enforced, the official respondents have circulated the impugned final seniority list on 07.01.2008 (Annexure P10) strictly as per the inter se merit of the Gram Sewaks at the time of their selection. No exception can be made to the criteria decided to be followed by the respondents

¶48

5 –

¶49

CWP No.17361 of 2008.doc

¶50

nor does the learned counsel for the petitioner, in all fairness, questions the same. He, however, submits that in the absence of the merit list prepared by the Board, the petitioners are not in a position to find out as to whether or not the actual placement in the final seniority list is strictly as per their inter-se merit.

(8).

(9).

(10).

In my considered view, the petitioners, if have any doubt regarding placement of any candidate, shall undoubtedly be entitled to seek the relevant information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 or otherwise, so as to ascertain the correctness of their placement in the final seniority list. The objection(s), if any, raised by the petitioners will be immediately considered by the official respondents and necessary rectification (s), if so required, will be made at the earliest. It is also not seriously in dispute that further promotions to the posts of Social Education and Panchayat Officers are to be made by following the principle of seniority-cum-merit from amongst the Gram Sewaks.

¶55

In these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶56

6 –

¶57

CWP No.17361 of 2008.doc

¶58

i. The petitioners shall be at liberty to seek information with regard to the placement of any candidate above them in the final seniority list within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and such information shall be supplied to them by the respondents within two weeks thereafter;

¶59

ii. The petitioners then shall be entitled to submit representation(s)/objection(s) against placement of such candidates and the same shall be disposed of by the respondents within a period of one month from the date of its receipt. Necessary correction, if so required, shall also be carried out within that period;

¶60

iii. After rectification(s), if any, and when the seniority list attains finality, the respondents shall proceed to make promotions to the posts of Social Education and Panchayat Officers strictly by following the principle of seniority-cum-merit;

¶61

iv. Whosoever amongst the petitioners is entitled to continue on the promotional post as per the final seniority list, the reversion order qua such candidates shall be deemed to have been set aside but without causing any disadvantage to their juniors. However, others can be reverted so

¶62

7 –

¶63

CWP No.17361 of 2008.doc

¶64

as to make room for their seniors as per the final

¶65

seniority list.

¶66

(11). Ordered accordingly.

¶67

(12). Dasti

¶68

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶69

19.02.2010

¶70

vishal shonkar

Bikram Jeet Kumar v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bikram Jeet Kumar v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Om Pal Vs State of Pb. and Ors.

Sukhwinder Vs State of Punjab and Others

Seema Rani Vs Distt & Sessions Judge & Ors.

Surjit Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Jugal Kishore Vs State of Punjab and Ors.