The petitioner challenged a seniority list framing order prepared by the Government of Punjab, claiming it violated regularisation policies by creating separate lists for employee categories rather than a single list. The Court held that separate lists per employee category and post are justified and allowed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No. 17209 of 2003
1
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 17209 of 2003 Date of Decision: 14.01.2013
Arjun Singh
………Petitioner
Versus
Government of Punjab and others
………… Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present:Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Chibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.(ORAL)
Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 1.1.2003 (Annexure P-3) vide which separate category-wise seniority list has been framed.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that as per the regularisation policy of the respondents all work charged/ daily wage workers have to be placed in one seniority list in respect of the posts they are holding or the work they are performing. The framing of seniority list as per the category of the employees by the respondents is not in consonance with the policy decision of the government of Punjab and, therefore, placing the petitioner at Sr. No. 162 in the seniority list of Patrolmen, is illegal. He contends that the petitioner is entitled to regularisation of his services. The factum that the service of the petitioner has been regularised w.e.f. 24.5.2011 as a Patrolmen has been admitted by the counsel for petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner who is present in the Court. He further
CWP No. 17209 of 2003
2
contends that the impugned order deserves to be quashed as the same is not in consonance with the policy decision of the government of Punjab of regularisation.
On considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, the impugned order is fully justified as a separate list according to the category of the employee and the post held by him has to be taken into consideration and the person has to be considered for regularisation against the post, which are available in that particular category. Seniority list, therefore, framed by the respondents depending upon the category and the work performed by the employee concerned is fully justified and is in accordance with the policy decision for regularisation taken by the State of Punjab. Admittedly, the name of the petitioner finds mention at Sr. No. 162 in the seniority list of Patrolmen category. Daily wage category employees of this category of Patrolmen have been regularised upto the persons placed at seniority No. 26, the claim of the petitioner, thus, could not be considered by them. The impugned order dated 1.1.2003 (Annexure P-3) passed by the respondents is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference by this Court.
The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE
14.01.2013 'sp'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a seniority list framed separately for employees of different categories within the same post violates the government's regularisation policy.
Whether a daily wage worker can be considered for regularisation in a post category where the quota is already filled by higher seniority employees of the same post category.
Arjun Singh
Government of Punjab
Augustine George Masih
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
