Partly allowed

Ram Lal Chowkidar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Jan 2012CWP/15632/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Legal heirs of a deceased Chowkidar sought quashing of removal orders issued by Assistant Collector and Collector for lack of jurisdiction and arbitrary procedure. Court set aside both orders and awarded expiration pay.

What did the court decide?

Quashment of the removal order dated 17.03.2010 and the appeal order dated 20.07.2010; Legal heirs entitled to arrears of pay from date of removal till death.

Ram Lal Chowkidar Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.15632 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P. No. 15632 of 2010

¶5

Date of Decision: January 13, 2012

Ram Lal

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶12

Present: Mr. S.S. Duhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Sandeep S. Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶14

Mr. Kamal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

¶15

Paramjeet Singh, J.

¶16

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 20.07.2010 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Collector, Jind and order dated 17.03.2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Safidon, whereby the petitioner has been illegally and arbitrarily removed from the post of Chowkidar of Village Jamni, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind and also prayed for reinstatement in service with arrears of pay and all

¶17

CWP No.15632 of 2010

¶18

¶19

other consequential benefits.

¶20

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar of Village Jamni, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind. He expired on 28.01.2011 as mentioned vide C.M. No. 9736 of 2011. His legal heirs have been brought on record vide order dated 12.01.2012. The legal heirs are his widow Smt. Premo, and three sons, namely, Satbir, Om Parkash and Rajinder Singh. On the complaint of respondent Nos. 3 to 6, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Safidon, vide order dated 17.03.2011 (Annexure P/1) removed the petitioner (now deceased) from the post of Chowkidar. Against the order (Annexure P/1), the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector and the same was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 20.07.2010 (Annexure P/2).

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶22

record.

¶23

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been removed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade which is against rule 11 of the Punjab Chowkidara Rules. Under those rules, the Deputy Commissioner or the officer duly authorised by him in that behalf may dismiss any village watchman or daffadar for any misconduct or neglect of duty or physical unfitness for performance of his duties. The services of the petitioner has been dispensed with on the ground that majority of the Lambardar and the main persons of the village are against the petitioner. The petitioner is unable to do the work of Chowkiddar and the petitioner is not fit to remain the post of Chowkiddar. No ground has been made out to remove the chowkidar because no

¶24

CWP No.15632 of 2010 3

¶25

medical was conducted to indicate that he is not in a position to work merely on the complaint of Lamdardar, chowkidar cannot be removed. There must be some cogent evidence for removal of the Chowkidar.

¶26

Another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been removed by a person who has never been authorised by the Deputy Commissioner. As such, the order of removal is without jurisdiction.

¶27

This Court put to the learned State Counsel, as well as, the learned counsel for the private respondents as to whether the Assistant Collector Ist Grade was authorized by the Deputy Commissioner. They have failed to show any order which may indicate that the Deputy Commissioner has delegated the powers to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade for removal of the petitioner from the post of Chowkidar. In the face of this, order dated 17.03.2010 (Annexure P/1) cannot survive and is hereby set aside. Since, the basic order itself is without jurisdiction, the order passed in appeal is also held to be illegal, arbitrary, not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, order dated 20.07.2010 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Collector is also set aside.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the legal heirs of the petitioner are entitled to pay and appears from the date of removal of the petitioner till his death i.e. 28.01.2011. The relief qua reinstatement into service has become infructuous in view of the death of the petitioner. However, so far as the arrears of salary and consequential benefits are concerned, the legal heirs of the petitioner shall be entitled to the arrears of pay and consequential benefits as per the provisions of law. The

¶29

CWP No.15632 of 2010 4

¶30

Government authority will ensure that the arrears should be given to the legal heirs of the petitioner, who are entitled as per law only.

¶31

In view of the above observations, the instant writ petition is

¶32

allowed partly.

¶33

No order as to costs.

¶34

January 13, 2012 vkd

¶35

(Paramjeet Singh) Judge

Ram Lal Chowkidar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Lal Chowkidar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arjan Singh Vs State of Haryana

Run Singh Vs Commandant 54,BN B.S.F.& Anr.

Gurcharan Singh and Anr. Vs Superintending Canal Officer and Ors.

Mardan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Surjit Singh and Ors. Vs Punjab Wakf Board and Anr.

Hardeep Singh and Anr. Vs Commissioner Patiala and Ors.