C.W.P. No.14460 of 2007 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.14460 of 2007
DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 26, 2009
Rajesh `
.....PETITIONER
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
---
Present: Mr.Pankaj Midha, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms.Kirti Singh, A.A.G.,Haryana,
for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr.Raman B.Garg, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.
..
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India for issuing direction to the respondents to adjust
him against the post of Clerk in Municipal Council under the Policy of the
State Government dated 21.3.2006 (Annexure P-9).
Briefly, in the present case, the petitioner was appointed by the
Municipal Committee, Narwana (Jind) as Octroi Clerk on contract basis on
16.12.1996 when the employees of the Municipal Committees/Municipal
Councils were on strike. It has been alleged that the petitioner discharged
his duties sincerely and no complaint whatsoever was made against him.
After the strike, when the petitioner was not adjusted in the Municipal
service in terms of the Policy dated 13.5.1997, he made representation
before the respondent authorities. It has been further alleged that the
employees who could not be adjusted after the strike, made several
representations like the petitioner. Ultimately, the respondents took decision
C.W.P. No.14460 of 2007 -2-
dated 24.4.2001 whereby those candidates were allowed to be adjusted who
had worked throughout the period of strike. It has been further alleged that
the petitioner had worked with the respondents for whole period of strike
i.e. 16.12.1996 to 28.2.1997, but he was not adjusted.
In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.3 and
4, it has been stated that as per records, the petitioner had never worked
with the Municipality during the strike period. It has been specifically stated
that the authenticity of the list (Annexure P3) showing that the petitioner
had worked with the respondents, is also doubtful as the same does not
carry any signatures of competent officer of the answering respondents. It
has been further stated that the petitioner has not only made a false
statement about his working with the Municipality during the strike period
but also fabricated the document just to mislead the Court. It has been also
stated that the petitioner is putting in his claim on the basis of the Policy
dated 13.5.1997 made by the State government, whereby it has been decided
that all ad hoc and daily wager employees recruited against the vacancies
during the strike, should be adjusted as per their seniority and in case there
is no vacancy, a seniority list be made for their adjustment on priority basis.
It is stated that after an inordinate delay, the petitioner has filed the instant
petition in the year 2007 on the basis of false facts. It has been further
averred that now the State Government has issued policy letter dated
19.2.2007 finally to all the Municipalities and thereby conveyed its decision
not to re-adjust the employees worked in the Municipalities during the
strike. It has been stated that the State Government had to issue these
instructions to prevent its misuse because so many people approached even
after lapse of reasonable period, whose names could neither find mentioned
C.W.P. No.14460 of 2007 -3-
in the list supplied by the respective Municipal Committees nor they had
worked throughout the strike period. In view of these facts, the petitioner is
not entitled for being appointed on regular basis against the vacant posts in
view of Policies of the State Government dated 13.5.1997 and 24.4.2001,
respectively. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition.
I have heard the counsel for the parties.
During the course of arguments, the aforesaid factual position
has not been disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. However, counsel
argued that some of the employees, who were appointed on ad hoc basis
during the strike period in the Municipal Committees, like the petitioner,
were given appointments, but the petitioner failed to receive any such
communication. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the action of
the respondents is illegal and arbitrary.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued
that in view of the Policy of the Government dated 13.5.1997, at no point of
time the petitioner was entitled for appointment against the vacant posts
because he never worked in the Municipality during the strike period. It has
been further argued that even the policy decision taken by the Government
on 19.2.2007 has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in
Narender Kumar v. The Municipal Council, Ambala City and others (CWP
No.5280 of 2006, decided on 11.3.2008), wherein it has been held that the
mere fact that the petitioner had worked during the strike period, will not
confer any right to seek appointment. Therefore, there is no merit in this
petition.
After hearing the counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit
in the instant petition. The petitioner is claiming appointment against the
C.W.P. No.14460 of 2007 -4-
vacant post of Clerk in Municipal Committee/Council, Narwana on the
ground that he had worked on ad hoc basis as Octroi Clerk during the strike
period from 16.12.1996 to 28.2.1997. In order to prove the fact that he had
worked during the strike period, the petitioner is relying upon the list
(Annexure P3) as well as the representation (Annexure P10) given by him
in the year 2002. The respondents in their written statement have clearly
denied and categorically stated that the petitioner had never worked on ad
hoc basis as Octroi Clerk during the strike period from 16.12.1996 to
28.2.1997. It has also been stated that no such list (Annexure P3) was
prepared and the same was not authenticated by any person. Regarding
representation, it has been stated that the same was never received by the
office of the respondents. The petitioner has not placed on record any proof
of his appointment or working as Octroi Clerk on ad hoc basis during the
strike period from 16.12.1996 to 28.2.1997. Neither the appointment letter
nor any salary slip have been produced which indicate that the petitioner
had worked during the strike period. For the first time, the petitioner has
filed the instant petition in the year 2007. Prior to that, the petitioner never
put any application regarding employment in terms of the Policy decision
dated 13.5.1997 on the ground that he had worked during the strike period.
Therefore, in my view the petitioner has no case to claim appointment on
the basis that he had worked during the strike period. Even otherwise, the
Policy dated 21.3.2006 only conveys the decision of the State Government
to withdraw the Policy instructions dated 24.4.2001.
In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the
same is hereby dismissed.
October 26, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE