The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an impugned seniority list. The court held that since the senior employee applied to be returned to the parent department before a decision on her transfer option was made, her initial application stood revoked, justifying her placement above the petitioner.
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.
1
CWP No. 15009 of 2014
224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 15009 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.09.2018.
Surinder Kumar
... Petitioner
Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Chauhan
Present: Mr. Aman Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Sunint Kaur, AAG Punjab.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J.
This civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 16.12.2011 (Annexure P-8) vide which final seniority list of the Senior Assistants in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar had been prepared and respondent No.5 had been shown to be senior to the petitioner and for setting aside of order dated 16.05.2013 (Annexure P- 13) vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.12.2011 (Annexure P-8) was dismissed.
It has been contended that the petitioner has been working as Senior Assistant in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar. In the year 2006, the Government of Punjab created a new District, namely, District Tarn Taran out of District Amritsar. The petitioner and respondent No.5 had been in the office of Deputy SANJAY Commissioner, Amritsar. The department sought options from the 2018.09.26 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No. 15009 of 2014
2
employees for absorption in District Tarn Taran. Respondent No.5 opted to be absorbed in Distrtict Tarn Taran. Accordingly, respondent No.5 was transferred to District Tarn Taran. Thereafter, on request made by respondent No.5, she was re-transferred to District Amritsar. In the impugned seniority list (Annexure P-8), respondent No.5 had been shown senior to the petitioner whereas, after re-transfer to District Amritsar, she ought to have been placed at the bottom, therefore, it is asserted that the seniority list is bad in law and liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, the learned State counsel submits that though, respondent No.5 had opted for District Tarn Taran but before any decision upon her application could be taken, she moved another application requesting to send her back to the office of Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar on the ground that her husband was suffering from chronic disease and her son was handicapped. Respondent No.2 considered the application of respondent No.5 and sent her back to her parent office vide office order dated 19.03.2007 and it is clear from the said order that it was not a transfer but just an order to send the employee back to her parent office.
Heard.
Admittedly, in the parent department i.e. office of Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, respondent No.5 was senior to the petitioner. However, on carving out of new District Tarn Taran, respondent No.5 opted to be absorbed in District Tarn Taran. It is to be
SANJAY noticed that before any decision was taken on her application, a fresh 2018.09.26 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No. 15009 of 2014
3
application was moved for sending her back to her parent department i.e. office of Deputy Commissioner, Amrtisar whereupon vide order dated 19.03.2007 (Annexure P-5), she was sent back to her parent department. This Court is of the opinion that once respondent No.5 has moved fresh application for being transferred back to District Amritsar, her original application stood revoked impliedly because till that date, no decision had been taken on her application, therefore, she has been rightly placed above the petitioner in the seniority list. No ground is made out to interfere in the seniority list.
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
18.09.2018. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) SN JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
SANJAY 2018.09.26 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to set aside the seniority list where the senior employee had applied to be returned to the parent department before a decision was taken on her initial transfer opt
Surinder Kumar
State of Punjab
Jitendra Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
