IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
L.P.A. No.751 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 20.8.2009
The Haryana State Federation of Consumers Cooperative
Wholesale Stores Ltd.
-----Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Sudesh Thakur and others.
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate
for the appellant.
-----
ORDER:
1. The appellant is aggrieved by order of learned Single
Judge, allowing the writ petition of respondent No.1.
2. The writ petition was against order dated 5.4.1996,
reverting her from the post of Assistant to the post of
Storekeeper.
3. The respondent was appointed as Storekeeper w.e.f.
13.2.1981. On her application, vide order dated 10.7.1985, she
was transferred and appointed as Assistant. She continued to
work on that post and was also included in the seniority list for the
Assistants. A writ petition was filed in the year 1994 being
C.W.P. No.2608 of 1994 by some of the employees, objecting to
the grant of seniority to the respondent above them, on which this
LPA No.751 of 2009 2
Court directed that the issue of seniority be re-determined, vide
order dated 23.5.1995. Purporting to act in compliance of the
said order, impugned order dated 5.4.1996 was passed. The
respondent, inter-alia, submitted that she had already worked for
11 years on the post of Assistant and even if she was not given
seniority, she could not be removed from the post on which she
was working.
4. The writ petition was contested by the appellant by
submitting that the order transferring her to the post of Assistant
was void ab initio as her original post was as Storekeeper and
there was no provision for appointment by way of transfer.
5. Learned Single Judge upheld the plea of the
respondent and held that appointment by transfer was not void ab
initio as the qualification for the two posts was the same and the
pay scale was also the same. The statement on behalf of the
respondent, as noted in the impugned order, is as under:-
“Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner has limited his claim only to validation of
her appointment as Assistant and is not claiming that
the petitioner should be granted seniority w.e.f.
13.02.1981…..”
6. Accordingly, learned Single Judge held that
invalidation of appointment of the respondent could not be
sustained. Appointment of the respondent w.e.f. 10.7.1985 was,
thus, declared to be valid.
LPA No.751 of 2009 3
7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
appointment of the respondent being void ab initio, the same
could be set aside at any time and the impugned order was
passed in view of direction of this Court, requiring the appellant to
re-decide the matter of seniority after hearing the parties.
9. We do not find any merit in the submission. The
appellant gave appointment to the respondent as Assistant in the
year 1985 and the respondent was working on the said post since
then. Merely because this Court required the appellant to re-
decide seniority, was not enough to pass an order un-settling the
appointment of a person who has already been working for 15
years, without her fault. The rules could not be read as
empowering the appellant to unsettle the appointment made 15
years back. The earlier writ petition itself was nine years after
appointment of respondent No.1 which fact should also have
been considered by the appellant while passing the order of
reversion. Contention that pay of respondent No.1 was not
affected carried no weight in support of an order disturbing
appointment long ago.
10. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the
view taken by the learned Single Judge.
11. The appeal is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
LPA No.751 of 2009 4
August 20, 2009 ( DAYA
CHAUDHARY )
ashwani JUDGE