Randhir Singh vs Huda and Others

Daya Chaudhary, J.—The claim of the petitioner in the present petition is for quashing of order dated 13.8.2009, whereby, the seniority of the petitioner has been fixed and modified with a further prayer to direct the respondents to refix his seniority by placing him over and above respondent No. 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed as WPO on 9.11.1982 on daily wages basis and thereafter his services were regularized w.e.f. 3.8.1993 as WPO Helper, whereas, respondent No. 5 was appointed as WPO w.e.f. 12.12.1987. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner is senior to respondent No. 5 on the basis of length of service.

Written statement on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 has been filed and the same is on record.

Original record of the case was called and the same has been perused.

Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 submits that respondent No. 5 is senior to the petitioner as he was appointed on 18.12.1981 on monthly sanction as daily wager and subsequently his seniority was fixed after considering his earlier service. Learned counsel further contends that the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is much more senior to respondent No. 5 is contrary to record as while refixing the seniority of respondent No. 5, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner also, to which reply was filed by the petitioner and the same was also considered.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there was break in the earlier service of respondent No. 5 but that cannot be considered.

Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 submits that there was only delay in granting sanction and there was no break in the service of respondent No. 5.

Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the relevant record available on the file.

As per case of the petitioner, he is senior to respondent No. 5, whereas, stand of the respondent-Department as well as respondent No. 5 is that respondent No. 5 is much senior to the petitioner as he was appointed much earlier to the appointment of the petitioner. Although an objection has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was break in the service of respondent No. 5 but the same cannot be considered and earlier service with break cannot be considered towards seniority as there was delay only in granting sanction, whereas, respondent No. 5 was working during that period. This contention cannot be accepted in the writ petition as this is a disputed question of fact. On the basis of original record and the averment made in the written statement and also by considering initial date of appointment, the petitioner cannot be considered to be senior to respondent No. 5. The claim of the petitioner is based only on the basis of date of initial appointment by stating that he joined his services much earlier to the appointment of respondent No. 5. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is not supported by any document except oral statement. There is no merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. The arguments based on disputed facts cannot be accepted by this Court. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise before appropriate forum, if so advised.