Dismissed

Malook Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Mar 2011LPA/476/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This disposition order dismissed three Letters Patent Appeals filed against a Single Judge's order in a pension and seniority dispute. The court upheld the Single Judge's ruling that ad hoc service does not count towards seniority, noting the overruling nature of subsequent judgments like Gurmail Singh.

What did the court decide?

The appeals are dismissed with no costs.

Malook Singh and Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

-1-

¶2

LPA No. 471 of 2011(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

LPA No. 471 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision 15.03.2011

¶5

Malook Singh and others

¶6

---Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

---Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

¶11

Present: Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate for the appellants.

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

M.M. KUMAR, J.

¶15

This order shall dispose of a set of three appeals bearing LPA Nos. 471, 472 and 476 of 2011, filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent, as the common questions of law and facts have been raised. The learned Single Judge has allowed the corresponding Writ Petitions filed by the writ petitioners-respondent, namely, CWP Nos.2607 of 1994, 2341 of 1995 and 1702 of 1994 respectively. The basic premise for allowing the petitions filed by the writ petitionersrespondent is that the order dated 12.01.1994, whereby notice has been issued to them for change of their seniority to their detriment was to implement the Division Bench judgment rendered in the case

¶16

of Malook Singh v. State of Punjab 1991 (7) SLR 367 .

¶17

-2-

¶18

LPA No. 471 of 2011(O&M)

¶19

Admittedly, the writ petitioners-private respondent were not made parties by the appellants when the judgment was delivered in Malook Singh's case (supra) and vide notice dated 12.01.1994 (P-7), objections were invited from them to be filed within a period of 15 days. The learned Single Judge has found that the official respondents without waiting for their objections, passed an order dated 14.01.1994 (P-10), redetermining their seniority qua writ petitioner-private respondents on the basis of law laid down in Malook Singh's case (supra).

¶20

The learned Single Judge has taken notice of a Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of Gurmail Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others , (CWP No. 9200 of 1993 decided on 21.7.1994), which has overruled the view taken in Malook Singh's case (supra). The relevant observations have also quoted to reiterate the principle that ad hoc appointees are not entitled to seniority on the basis of total length of service and to that extent the judgment in Malook Singh's case (supra) could not be regarded as correct law. The Division Bench in Gurmail Singh's case (supra) has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra , AIR 1990 SC 1607 , Keshav Chandra Joshi and others v. Union of India and others , AIR 1991 SC 284 and State of West Bengal v. Aghore Nath Dey 1993(3) SCC 371 and other judgments. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has taken the view that the judgment in Malook Singh's case (supra)

¶21

LPA No. 471 of 2011(O&M) -3-

¶22

cannot be held binding on the rights of the writ petitionersrespondent and their seniority would not be adversely affected. It has also been held that the judgment would bind the parties to the adjudication and not the writ petitioners-private respondent. Accordingly, writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners-private respondent have been allowed and the claim of the appellants qua writ petitioners-private respondent, for the purpose of counting ad hoc service for seniority, has been repelled. As a consequence thereof, the appellant would not be entitled to tag ad hoc service for the purpose of seniority to the detriment of the writ petitionersrespondent.

¶23

We have heard Mr. D.S. Patwalia, learned counsel for the appellants at a considerable length and are of the view that the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity. On a question of principle, any ad hoc service followed by regularisation, would not qualify for the purpose of fixing seniority. The aforesaid principle has been laid down in catena of judgments including the five-Judges Constitution Bench in Direct Recruit's case (supra), Aghore Nath Day's case (supra) and a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Chambel Singh v. State of Haryana and another , 1995 (1) RSJ 382 . There is no doubt that the judgment rendered in Malook Singh's case (supra) would enure to the benefit of the appellants insofar as it affects the rights of those who were parties to the aforesaid proceedings but if the judgment in Malook Singh's case (supra) is overruled, having held as

¶24

-4-

¶25

LPA No. 471 of 2011(O&M)

¶26

not correct law then it would not bind the writ petitioners-private respondent, as has been rightly held by the learned Single Judge. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and the appeals do not warrant admission.

¶27