CWP No.17313 of 1996 [1]
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C. W. P. No.17313 of 1996
Date of Decision: 20 - 10 - 2008
J.R.Nagpal through L.Rs. ....Petitioner
v.
The Secretary, Ministry of Food, Government ....Respondents
of India and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
***
Present: Mr.Anand Chhibbar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Prabodh Mittal, Advocate
for the respondents.
***
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (ORAL)
J.R.Nagpal is no more and is being represented by his legal
representatives. He had earlier filed Civil Writ Petition No.4063 of 1973, in
which he could not succeed and aggrieved against the same had filed
L.P.A.No.393 of 1983 which was decided by a Division Bench of this Court
on 18.12.1990. The following facts are not in dispute that petitioner was
appointed on 26.3.1952 as Upper Division Clerk in the Ministry of
Rehabilitation, Government of India. Thereafter he was promoted as Junior
Accountant on 1.11.1954. It has been noted by the Division Bench while
deciding the Letters Patent Appeal that he was promoted as Scrutinizer
w.e.f. 1.11.1954.
CWP No.17313 of 1996 [2]
Mr.Anand Chhibbar has stated before me that posts of Junior
Accountant and Scrutinizer carry the same pay scale and except for
difference in nomenclature, the duties discharged were the same. He has
further tried to project that in Ministry of Rehabilitation, the Junior
Accountant and Scrutinizer were treated at par. This submission of
Mr.Chhibbar is being controverted by Mr.Mittal by stating that Junior
Accountant and Scrutinizer constitute different feeder cadres. He stated that
Junior Accountant is promoted as Senior Accountant, whereas Scrutinizer
was feeder cadre to Senior Godown Keeper. Mr.Mittal has referred to para
8 of the written statement wherein it was stated that the petitioner was on
the lower post and scale on 1.11.1954 and, therefore, the question of fixing
his seniority as Scrutinizer from 1.11.1954 does not arise.
I have noted this contention of learned counsel for the parties
before taking into consideration the mandate of a Division Bench of this
Court in Letters Patent Appeal as both the parties are interpreting the
conclusion of the Letters Patent Bench differently. In Letters Patent Appeal
the controversy involved was that service rendered by the appellant
(petitioner herein) in the Ministry of Rehabilitation should be counted
towards seniority and he should not be considered as fresh appointee in the
Ministry of Food and Agriculture. The Division Bench while deciding the
the controversy in Letters Patent Appeal held as under:-
“After hearing the learned counsel for parties, we are of
the view that the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot
be upheld. From the documents Annexures P,N,M and Q to
which reference has already been made above, it is quite
evident that it was a case of transfer of the appellant from the
CWP No.17313 of 1996 [3]Ministry of Rehabilitation to the Ministry of Food and
Agriculture. In view of this, the appellant’s service in the
Rehabilitation department in the same pay scale could not be
ignored for the purpose of seniority. Apart from the fact that
there are specific instructions of the Government of India to
that effect, issued in June, 1949, we are of the view that if an
employee is transferred from one department to another, the
service rendered in the previous department cannot be ignored
for the purpose of seniority. The issuance of a fresh letter of
appointment is of no consequence, as it looks that the same was
issued in routine and no mind was applied that in fact the
appellant had come by way of transfer. The appointment letter
in fact should have been that the appellant was being taken in
the department by way of transfer.
For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is accepted
and the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. It is
directed that the appellant’s service rendered in the Ministry of
Rehabilitation as Scrutinizer in the equivalent pay scales to that
of Senior Godown Keeper would be taken into consideration
for the purpose of determination of seniority in the department
of Food and Agriculture as Senior Godown Keeper and all
consequential benefits flowing from the determination of
seniority would be given to the appellant. However, we leave
the parties to bear their own costs.”
I find merit in the contention of Mr.Prabodh Mittal that the pay
scale of Junior Accountant or Scrutinizer are not to be taken into
CWP No.17313 of 1996 [4]
consideration but entry in the cadre is the consideration, therefore, when
the petitioner was taken as Scrutinizer on 1.9.1960, is the date and when
seniority of the petitioner is to commence in the cadre. A perusal of
Annexures R-1 and R-2 show that a Junior Accountant was to be promoted
as Senior Accountant whereas a Scrutinizer was to be promoted as Senior
Godown Keeper and thereafter further line of promotion has to follow and
petitioner had availed the further promotions. Therefore, there is no
illegality in the relief granted by the respondents to the petitioner in
pursuance to orders passed in the Letters Patent Appeal.
Hence, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the
same is dismissed, without any order as to costs.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA )
October 20, 2008. JUDGE
RC