Dismissed

Onkar Nath v. Union of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 May 2010CWP/20049/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the C.A.T.'s order dismissing his application for a Clerk-catypist post. Court observed C.A.T. correctly held petitioner ineligible as category of Helper/Khalasi did not appear in eligible categories and he did not meet the requisite two-year regular service condition in an eligible post. Writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was dismissed.

Onkar Nath Vs Union of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CWP No. 20049 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

CWP No. 20049 of 2009 Date of decision 13 .5.2010

Onkar Nath

... Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others

¶9

... Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal,Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents 1 to 3

¶12

1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶13

2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?

¶14

M.M.KUMAR, J.

¶15

The petitioner who is working in the Construction Organisation as Helper Khalasi has approached this Court challenging order dated 26.8.2009 (P.4) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, (for brevity 'the Tribunal') while dismissing his O.A. No. 601 HR 2007. The Tribunal has held that in terms of letter dated 12.10.2006 the petitioner was not eligible for participating in the selection process for the post of Clerk-cum-Typist in the grade of Rs. 3050-4590 against 16 2/3 matric quota from Group 'D' because the category of Helper/Khalasi did not figure in the eligible categories as mentioned in the letter. It is pertinent to mention that vide letter dated 12.10.2006 (A.6) the following categories were made eligible:

¶16

“1. All Group-D working in Administrative office i.e. Office Khalasi, Ferro Khalasi, Ferro Printer, Sr. Safaiwala, Record Sorter, Record Lifter, Gestetner Operator, Jamadar Khalasi,

¶17

CWP No. 20049 of 2009 2

¶18

Jamadar and Ferro Typer.

¶19

2.The staff working as Store Khalasi in Mechanical, Electric, S&T and Engg. Department.”

¶20

The argument of the counsel for the petitioner has been that he may be treated to be covered by the expression 'Store Khalasi' since he has been working in the S&T for adequate number of years, he would be eligible. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions has concluded that the petitioner was initially appointed as casual labourer in S&T of Railway in the year 1982 and then he was regularised as Khalasi and then promoted as Helper Khalasi. It is immaterial that he has been deputed to work in the construction organisation on adhoc basis and given promotion as Record Lifter or was utilised to work as Typist for which he is paid the scale of Rs. 3050-4590. As the petitioner has not been working as Store Khalasi he cannot be considered eligible merely because he is discharging the duties on higher post. According to the letter dated 10.12.2006 minimum of two years of regular service as on 12.10.2006 in terms of instructions No. PS 13188 of 2006 is required. Admittedly, the petitioner does not fulfill the aforesaid condition of having rendered minimum of two years regular service on any of the posts mentioned in the letter. Thus there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.

¶21

okg

¶22

13.5.2010

Onkar Nath v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Onkar Nath v. Union of India 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

Modan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rewati Raman and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Harender Dhillon & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Joginder Kaur Vs Central Adhministrative Tribunal & Anr.

M/S Prabhat Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Hardeep Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.