Nem Singh vs Haryana State Agricultural … on 29 October, 2009

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH.

                                    L.P.A. No.1115 of 2009(O&M)
                                     Date of decision: 29.10.2009

Nem Singh.
                                                    -----Appellant
                              Vs.
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and another.
                                                -----Respondents


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH

Present:-    Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate
             for the appellant.
                   ---

ORDER:

1. This appeal has been preferred against order of

learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition against

reversion.

2. The appellant was earlier employed with Haryana

Tanneries Limited, a public sector undertaking, which was wound

up and the appellant was retrenched from service. On filing

C.W.P. No.9469 of 1988 in this Court, order dated 1.12.1988 was

passed and direction was issued to employ the retrenched

employees in any other organization without taking into account

their past service. Accordingly, the appellant was offered

appointment in Market Committee on 8.12.1989 on the condition

that his past service will not be counted. The appellant accepted
LPA No.1115 of 2009 2

the appointment and joined on 8.1.1990. Thereafter, by counting

past service, the appellant was given promotion, but when

mistake was noticed, the appellant was reverted, after he had

already worked for more than four years on promotional post.

This was challenged. Learned Single Judge dismissed the

petition in view of earlier directions of this Court and in view of

conditions of appointment which were accepted by the appellant.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

4. Contention raised is that since earlier also the

appellant had served with public sector undertaking, he was

entitled to count the past service. It was next submitted that the

appellant was allowed to work for four years on the promotional

post. Reversion, at this stage, will operate harshly.

5. We are unable to accept the submissions. The issue

of past service is concluded by earlier judgment of this Court and

it is not disputed that if past service is not counted, the appellant

could not get the promotion. No doubt the reversion will operate

harshly against the appellant but the order having been passed to

rectify the mistake, there is no error in the view taken that the

order of reversion was not liable to be interfered with.

6. Dismissed.

                                        (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
                                                JUDGE


October 29, 2009                              ( GURDEV SINGH )
ashwani                                            JUDGE