CWP No.6386 of 1986 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.6386 of 1986
Date of Decision: 24.04.2009
Hari Singh (deceased) through his LRs
...Petitioner
VERSUS
Director of Industries, Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present: Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
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?
AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL)
Hari Singh petitioner was a Mechanic in the Industrial
Department controlled by the Director of Industries, Haryana, the
respondent. He was appointed as Motor Mechanic in 1965 and in 1977 he
was confirmed. As per instructions then prevalent, the post of Drilling
Assistant was promotional post to which a Motor Mechanic with two years
experience was eligible. The other source was from Rigman for promotion
to the post of Drilling Assistant with three years experience. On 11.3.1983
Hari Singh, petitioner as well as Janki Dass who was a Rigman, were
promoted as Drilling Assistants. Subsequently, vide order Annexure P-3,
Hari Singh, petitioner was reverted to the post of Mechanic. This order was
CWP No.6386 of 1986 -2-
challenged in this writ petition.
In the written statement filed by the State, it is stated that since
petitioner’s promotion was provisional, he was reverted as per instructions
received from the State Government vide order passed by the Director.
Now it is stated that service rules were enacted in 1998, which were
applicable for promotion to the post of Drilling Assistant and the post of
Motor Mechanic stands abolished.
The question for consideration is whether as per the
Statute/Rules of the Government or the instructions which were prevalent
on the date of promotion i.e. 11.3.1983, the same was in order. In para 5 of
the writ petition, it is specifically stated that as per policy decision, the post
of Drilling Assistant was to be filled up from two sources i.e. Mechanic
with two years experience and Rigman with three years experience were
eligible for promotion on the basis of proposed rules. In the written
statement in respective paras, this stand is admitted. In para 5 of the written
statement, it is specifically stated that as per decision taken, two posts of
Drilling Assistant were to be filled, one by promoting a Rigman and the
other by promoting one Mechanic. The relevant experience required for
promotion is admitted in para 7 of the written statement. Thus, it indicates
that when promotion of the petitioner was made, it was in accordance with
the policy decision of the State Government. Subsequently, if policy
decision was reverted, previous promotions made could not be taken back.
Annexure P-3, the order of reversion, does not indicate any ground for
reverting the petitioner. It is only in the written statement that it was stated
that as per instructions of the State Government, order of reversion was
passed. Assuming such instructions were subsequently issued or that the
CWP No.6386 of 1986 -3-
Rules actually were finalised in 1998, the same would not be applicable
retrospectively on the relevant date of making promotions i.e. 11.3.1983.
The order of reversion in the set of present circumstances amounts to
punishment and cannot be sustained in law.
Coming to the relief to be granted to the petitioner it is directed
that the reversion order Annexure P-3 dated 20.10.1986 is set aside and the
petitioner would be considered to be a Drilling Assistant w.e.f. 11.3.1983.
He will be entitled to all consequential benefits except payment of actual
arrears for the period during which he did not work as Drilling Assistant.
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
( AJAY TEWARI )
April 24 , 2009 JUDGE
ashish