Civil Writ Petition No. 8218 of 2010

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition No. 8218 of 2010

Date of decision: 13.09.2011

Anoop Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr. Rajbir Sherawat, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana

for the State.

Mr. Anil Malik, Advocate

for respondent No. 3.

*****

RANJIT SINGH J.

The petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 are working as

Clerk in the office of Advocate General, Haryana. The petitioner has

filed the present writ petition to impugn the order making respondent

No. 3 senior to the petitioner in the cadre of Clerk.

As averred in the petition, the petitioner was appointed as

Clerk on stop gap basis on 18.08.1999 for 89 days. Thereafter, the

petitioner was relieved on 06.11.1999. After a gap of 3 days, he was

again appointed on the stop gap basis w.e.f. 09.11.1999 and

continued till 06.02.2000.

Like the petitioner, respondent No. 3 was also appointed

as stop gap basis on 12.08.1999 and continued as such up to

Civil Writ Petition No. 8218 of 2010

2

01.11.1999. Respondent No. 3 was appointed w.e.f. 09.11.1999 and

continued as such up to 06.02.2000. Both, the petitioner and

respondent No. 3 were appointed on daily wages basis w.e.f.

07.02.2000. The services of the petitioner as well as the respondents

have been regularized in terms of policy instructions, which was

issued on 01.10.2003. Following this policy, the order regularizing the

petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 was passed. The manner of

fixing seniority was clearly mentioned in the order. Copy of the order

has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. The services

of the petitioner as well as of respondent No. 3 were, thus,

regularized on the conditions contained in Annexure P-2.

One of the condition imposed was that their seniority will

be determined w.e.f. 01.10.2003 in accordance with the date of their

joining the post on daily wages, as per the provisions under para 4 of

the Government notification dated 01.10.2003. This condition reads

as under:-

“(iii)

Their seniority will be determined with effect from Ist

October, 2003 in accordance with the date of their joining

the post on daily wages as per provision made under

Para-4 of the Govt. Notification dated 1.10.2003 and as

per Service Rules applicable to them.”

As per the counsel for the petitioner, both the petitioner

and respondent No. 3 had joined the service on daily wage basis on

07.02.2000. That being the position, the petitioner being older in age

to respondent No. 3 was required to be assigned seniority over

respondent No. 3. However, ignoring this position, respondent No. 3

has been shown senior to the petitioner by taking into account the

Civil Writ Petition No. 8218 of 2010

3

services rendered by him as a stop gap arrangement. The

representation filed by the petitioner in this regard has been rejected

and he, accordingly, has filed the present writ petition to impugn the

seniority list as well as Annexure P-6.

Official respondents as well as private respondents have

filed replies. The only stand taken is that Sh. Sanjiv Kumar,

respondent No. 3, was appointed as stop gap basis on 12.08.1999

whereas the petitioner was appointed on 18.08.1999. Taking this fact

into consideration, Sh. Sanjiv Kumar- respondent has been made

senior to the petitioner by counting the service rendered by him as

stop gap arrangement.

While ordering regularization of the services of the

petitioner and respondent No. 3, it was clearly mentioned in their

appointment order that their seniority shall be determined in

accordance to the date of joining the post of daily wagers. It is not in

dispute that both the petitioner as well as the respondent had joined

as daily wagers on 07.02.2000. Whether under such circumstances,

the appo