Sweety vs The Punjab Mandi Board

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the seniority list (Annexure P-6) and order dated 01.06.1993 (Annexure P-9, whereby, appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the seniority list, was dismissed.

Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she was appointed as a Clerk with respondent No. 2 on compassionate basis vide order dated 23.08.1983. The appointment of the petitioner was considered as a regular employee w.e.f. 18.06.1983. Respondent No. 3 was appointed as a Clerk on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 04.04.1983 and respondent No. 4 was appointed as a Clerk purely on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 04.08.1982. Initially, as per the seniority list dated 20.10.1986, petitioner was shown senior to respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The said seniority list was challenged by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by filing an appeal. Considering the objections raised by the concerned employees, final seniority list was issued on 01.07.1989 wherein also petitioner was shown senior to respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 and 4 again moved a representation for fresh determination of the seniority list and alleged that the period spent by them on ad hoc basis be also counted towards seniority. Thereafter, the impugned seniority list (Annexure P-6) was prepared wherein petitioner was shown junior to respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Hence, the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed on regular basis w.e.f. 18.06.1983, whereas, the services of the private respondents No. 3 and 4 were regularized at a later stage. Therefore, petitioner was liable to be treated as senior to respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

None has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. However, written statement on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is on record.

Para 3 and 4 of the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 read as under:-

Para 3 as stated is wrong and hence denied. Respondent No. 4 was not appointed initially on 4.8.82 but was initially appointed on 1.2.82. It is further submitted that vide resolution No. 224 dated 21.7.83 the services of the 20 employees including the respondent No. 3 and 4 was regularized w.e.f. date of their initial appointments i.e. 4.4.83 and 1.2.82 respectively. A true translation of resolution No. 224 dated 21.7.83 is annexed to this Written Statement as annexure R-2. Thus both the respondent No. 3 and 4 are senior to the petitioner both from the dates of their initial appointments as well as from their regular appointments.

Para 4 as stated is wrong and hence denied. Even though the tentative seniority list dated 20.10.86 is admitted. It is respectfully submitted that the mere fact that the services of the respondents No. 3 and 4 were regularized subsequently to the joining of the petitioner is of no consequence. The petitioner has not mentioned the fact that her services were regularized retrospectively w.e.f. 18.6.1983 on 3.10.83, while the services of the respondents No. 3 and 4 were regularized with retrospective effect from 4.4.83 and 1.2.82 respectively on 21.7.83. Thus ever since 21.7.83 the respondents No. 3 and 4 have been senior to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has submitted that the said respondents were senior to the petitioner. In fact, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had joined the service of respondent No. 2 on 89 days basis much prior to the petitioner. Vide resolution (Annexure R-4) respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were made regular from the date of their initial appointment. Services of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were regularized w.e.f. 04.04.1983 and 01.02.1982 respectively, whereas, the services of the petitioner had been regularized w.e.f. 18.06.1983.

In the present case, from the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it is evident that the services of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had been regularized w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment i.e. 04.04.1983 and 01.02.1982, whereas, the services of the petitioner had been regularized w.e.f. 18.06.1983 i.e. the date of her initial appointment. It is apparent that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are senior to the petitioner as they had joined the services of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 much prior to the petitioner.

In these circumstances, no ground for interference is made out.

Dismissed.