Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. - (1.) The symposium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that the petitioner was appointed as Vigilance Supervisor on 13.3.1970 by the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (respondent No.1) (for brevity "respondent-Board") in the pay scale of Rs. 110-4-130/5-160/5-225, by virtue of appointment letter (Annexure P1). Thereafter in the year 1974, the respondent-Board decided to abolish the Vigilance Cell. As a sequel to the decision, all the persons, working in it were served with a one month's notice (Annexure P2) for terminating their services.
(2.) In the wake of request of employees of Vigilance Cell, the respondent-Board decided and adjusted them on the posts of equivalent ranks. They were stated to have been adjusted against the posts of Clerks, Auction Recorder and Care Takers. Consequently, the petitioner was also offered the post of Clerk, vide option letter dated 25.2.1974 (Annexure P3). In pursuance thereof, the petitioner joined the new post on 1.3.1974 (forenoon), by way of joining report (Annexure P4).
(3.) The petitioner claimed that the respondent-Board decided to allow the same pay, which he and other persons were drawing as Vigilance Supervisors and the period, for which they worked on such posts, shall be counted for the purposes of benefits of increments, leave and seniority etc. in their new posts, by means of office order dated 15.6.1974 (Annexure P5). In the meanwhile, the respondent-Board framed its service rules with effect from 14.6.1974 and Rule 12 of the Rules deals with the seniority of members of the service. As the respondent- Board proposed to correct the seniority list, therefore, the provisional gradation list of Clerks/Auction Recorder/Care Takers was circulated, vide letter dated 10.1.1987 and objections were invited in this respect. Then, the respondent-Board proposed to change the seniority of its employees, by virtue of impugned letter/extract of seniority list dated 11.12.1989 (Annexure P9) and they were asked to file the objections if any. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner filed the representation, which was rejected, by the Chief Administrator (respondent No.3), by way of impugned order dated 6.5.1991 (Annexure P10) and the seniority list (Annexure P9) was made absolute in this context.;