- (1.) Present writ petition is directed against the three orders of even date, i.e. 19.1.1999 (Annexures P-7 to P-9) as well as subsequent order dated 21.1.1999 (Annexure P-10), whereby two reversion orders were passed against the petitioner and his seniority was re-fixed, withdrawing the benefit of temporary service, which had earlier been counted for the purpose of seniority. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, respondents filed their written statement.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner initially joined the service on 3.9.1970 on temporary basis pursuant to the appointment order Annexure P-1. He further submits that Bhawani Shankar and others filed civil suit impleading petitioner as defendant No. 6, however, his seniority was not challenged in that civil suit. Plaintiffs of the civil suit were finally treated to be senior than the petitioner. Since there were good number of posts available, petitioner did not think it appropriate to challenge the civil suit decree, because he was not apprehending any adverse orders. He would next contend that respondent authorities proceeded on a factually incorrect and legally misconceived approach, while passing the impugned orders Annexure P-7 to P-10, which were arbitrary and discriminatory as well. He refers to the specific averments taken in para 4 and 13 of the writ petition, which have not been properly replied by the respondent, 'that similarly situated persons were granted the benefit of temporary service whereas the same benefit was denied to the petitioner'. He also submits that before passing the second reversion order Annexure P-10, not even a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, thus, respondents glaringly violated the basic principles of natural justice. He concluded by submitting that since the petitioner and his co-employees had already stood retired from service, nobody is going to be adversely affected if the impugned orders are set aside and petitioner is granted the consequential service benefits. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of this Court in Vishan Dass Bhutani v. The Haryana State Electricity Board,1993 1 SCT 86 . Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned orders, by allowing the present writ petition.
(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent authorities were duty bound to ensure the meticulous compliance of the civil court decree, which had become final against the petitioner. He further submits that the impugned orders were nothing but a direct consequence of compliance of civil court decree. As far as granting of benefit of temporary service for the purpose of seniority to other similarly situated persons was concerned, he submits that no such benefit was granted to any similarly situated co-employee of the petitioner. As far as factual aspect of the impugned orders referring to the dates from 1.11.1967 to 30.6.1972 was concerned, he submits that it would not advance the case of the petitioner. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition.;