RSA No.3068 of 2009 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.3068 of 2009
Date of Decision: 20.8.2009
State of Haryana and others ......Appellants
Versus
Jitender Kumar .......Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Shri Kulvir Narwal, Additional AG, Haryana.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral).
The defendants are in second appeal, aggrieved against the
judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the service
rendered by the plaintiff in the Development and Panchayat Department,
Haryana, from 28.12.1990 till his absorption on 2.11.1993 was ordered to
be considered for determining seniority in the Directorate of Women and
Child Welfare Department.
The plaintiff-respondent was appointed in the Development and
Panchayat Department on 28.12.1990. In pursuance of a circular issued by
the Joint Secretary to the Government of Haryana on 21.7.1992, options
RSA No.3068 of 2009 (2)
were invited from clerks and account clerks working in the Development
and Panchayat Department for transfer to the newly created Directorate of
Women and Child Welfare Department. In pursuance of such circular, the
plaintiff gave his option and was absorbed in the Women and Child Welfare
Department on 2.11.1993. At the time of absorption, it was stipulated that
the seniority shall be determined later on. Subsequently, relying upon Rule
11 of the Haryana Women and Child Welfare Department Service Rules,
1997 (for short `the Rules’), the service rendered by the plaintiff prior to his
absorption on 2.11.1993, was not taken into consideration. Such action was
challenged by the plaintiff before the Civil Court.
Both the Courts have held that Rules relied upon by the
defendants were not applicable at the time of absorption of the plaintiff.
Therefore, the plaintiff having been absorbed in pursuance of the option
sought by the Department, the service rendered him is to be taken into
consideration for determining of seniority.
Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that there is no
challenge to Rule 11 of the Rules in the suit, as in terms of the aforesaid
Rules, the service rendered by the plaintiff for the period prior to his
absorption, cannot be taken into consideration for the purposes of
determination of seniority.
I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned
counsel for the appellants. In fact, no challenge was required to be made by
the plaintiff to the said Rules. Both the Courts have rightly found that such
Rules were notified in the year 1997 and would not be applicable in respect
of the plaintiff, who was absorbed when such Rules, were not in force.
RSA No.3068 of 2009 (3)
Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material
irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to
any substantial question of law in the present second appeal.
Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
20.8.2009
ds