RSA No.3541 of 2011 (O&M)                                         1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH


                          RSA No.3541 of 2011 (O&M)
                          Date of decision: 11.01.2013


R.A. Goel (since deceased) through LRs.
                                              ......Appellant


             Versus


State of Haryana
                                              .......Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL

Present:     Mr. Vikas, Advocate,
             for Mr. A.K. Bansal, Advocate,
             for the appellant.
             *****

A.N. Jindal, J.

Amended memo of parties filed by the appellant, is taken on record.

Having remained unsuccessful before both the Courts below, the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred as 'the plaintiff') has preferred this regular second appeal.

The plaintiff, after his retirement as Engineer-in-Chief from the Public Works Department, was appointed as Chairman of the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (for brevity 'the Board') on 15.03.1990, the tenure of which was only for three years. However, with the change of the Government in May/June, 1991, one S.P. Grover was appointed as Chairman of the said Board on 07.09.1991. Since S.P. Grover was junior to the plaintiff, therefore, he (plaintiff) challenged the said notification before this Court by filing a writ petition i.e. CWP No.14123 of 1991. However, due to change of RSA No.3541 of 2011 (O&M) 2 circumstances the State of Haryana superseded the said Board under Section 61 and 62 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and due to that the aforesaid writ petition stood infructuous and accordingly, an order was passed by this Court on 11.05.1992. Thereafter, the plaintiff challenged the aforesaid order of the State Government through another CWP No.5752 of 1992, but the said petition was also dismissed on 15.05.1992. The SLP filed by him against the said order, was also dismissed on 30.06.1992. In the light of the liberty, as given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to claim the arrears, the plaintiff filed a civil suit for recovery of the salary. The said suit was dismissed and the appeal filed by him was also dismissed.

Heard, the factual situation is not disputed. It is settled by now that Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India does not apply to a tenure post, which is held for specified term or a contractual appointment. The abolition of a post for administrative exigencies or superseding of the Board as per the provisions of law, as happened in this case, cannot be said to be in violation of any constitutional provisions. Since the plaintiff had not so far joined the regular service, therefore, he cannot be said to be enjoying the privileges, to which a person holding a regular post is entitled to as per Article 311 of the Constitution. After the Board was superseded, the plaintiff could not be said to be left with any right in the post, which he was holding on part time basis, so as to entitle him to seek the damages/wages.

No substantial question of law arises for determination. Dismissed.

                                                               (A.N.Jindal)
11.01.2013                                                       Judge
ajp