High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kashmira Singh vs Haryana State Agricultural … on 4 December, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kashmira Singh vs Haryana State Agricultural … on 4 December, 2008
Civil Writ Petition No. 9955 of 2002                                1




     In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.


                 Civil Writ Petition No. 9955 of 2002

                     Date of Decision: 4.12.2008


Kashmira Singh
                                                            ...Petitioner
                                Versus
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and Another
                                                         ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.


Present: Mr. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate
         with Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate
         for the petitioner.

         Mr. Jayander Singh Chandail, Additional
         Advocate General, Haryana, for
         respondent No.1

         Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate
         for respondent No.2.


Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

The present writ petition has been filed by Kashmira Singh,

Junior Engineer, who is working in the office of the Executive Engineer,

Haryana State Minor Irrigation & Tube-well Corporation (hereinafter

referred to as “HSMITC”). He has filed the present writ petition with a

prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent

No.1 to absorb him on permanent basis from the date his juniors have

been absorbed and further directions was also sought to be issued that

his services be not terminated till the issuance of regular absorption
Civil Writ Petition No. 9955 of 2002 2

letter.

The present writ petition was preferred on 3.7.2002.

Notice of motion was issued by this Court on 5.7.2002 and it

was ordered that status quo regarding the service of petitioner as on that

day be maintained.

The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in HSMITC

on 23.10.1978. A letter (Annexure P1) dated 19.5.1998 was issued by

the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to

as “the Board”) that 16 persons on basis of selection have been

appointed in the Board as Junior Engineer by way of deputation.

Thereafter, the Board came forward with a circular that those employees

who have been appointed by way of deputation due to regular selection

process can be permanently absorbed if they give their consent in a

specified proforma. The petitioner, vide Annexure P2, on 21.1.2000

gave his consent. After the consent was given, the Executive Engineer

of the Board, vide Annexure P3, recommended absorption of the

petitioner in the Board. A request of the petitioner was sent by the Board

to the Managing Director of HSMITC to give “No Objection Certificate”

along with resume of Annual Confidential Reports. On 12.7.2001,

Personnel Officer-I for Managing Director, HSMITC, received a reply

that resume of Annual Confidential Reports have already been sent and

no disciplinary case is pending against the petitioner. However, No

Objection Certificate was not issued by HSMITC. In July 2002 HSMITC

issued a communication to the employees that since the respondent-

Corporation has been closed, therefore, its employees are to be

retrenched.

Civil Writ Petition No. 9955 of 2002 3

At this stage, Mr. Hooda appearing for HSMITC states that for

the first time on 18.4.2002, Board of Directors passed a a resolution to

close down the Corporation, therefore, he has stated that since No

Objection Certificate was not issued, 18.4.2002 will be the material date

as on that the employees were to be absorbed in the different

departments, according to their pre-existing seniority. This argument of

Mr.Hooda cannot be accepted in view of the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case. Since the petitioner, earlier by way of

selection, was appointed on deputation with the Board and a decision

had already been taken by the Board to absorb the petitioner in the

Agricultural Department, therefore, a benefit which accrued to the

petitioner cannot be denied because a year later HSMITC had decided

to close down and during the interregnum period, No Objection

Certificate could not be issued. Therefore. The objection raised by

HSMIC cannot be sustained in peculiar facts and circumstances of the

case.

Therefore, this petition is allowed. Petitioner shall be

absorbed in the Board according to terms & conditions enforced by the

Board.

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge
December 4, 2008
“DK”