OM PARKASH AND ORS v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 203 Date of Decision: 17.09.2025 1. CWP-9016-2007 OM PARKASH AND ORS. ...Petitioners Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. ...Respondents 2. CWP-3181-2015 SUSHIL KUMAR AND ORS. ...Petitioners CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. ...Respondents Versus
Legal Reasoning
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate with Ms. Ayushi Advocate, Ms. Mehak, Advocate and Ms. Mansi, Advocates for the petitioner Mr. Manbir Singh Batth, Advocate for respondent No.1 (in CWP-9016-2007) Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for respondent-MC Mr. Sanjeev Ghai, Advocate for respondent-MC (in CWP-3181-2015) Ms. Manisha Nehra, Advocate for Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 9 (in CWP-9016-2007) Mr. Gautam Pathania, Advocate for respondents No. 4 to 7 and 9 to 13 (in CWP-3181-2015) **** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP-9016-2007. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.09.17 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9016-2007 -2- 2. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of order dated 29.09.2011 and office order dated 22.05.2001 whereby petitioners’ claim for promotion as per seniority instead of proportionate has been declined. 3. The petitioners joined Notified Area Committee, Manimajra, Chandigarh (in short ‘NAC’) in 1991 as Firemen. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh (in short ‘MCC’) came to be constituted in July’ 1994. The petitioners were brought to MCC on 24.05.1994. It is apt to mention that process of constitution of MCC was initiated in May’1994. The private respondents belonged to fire staff of Chandigarh Administration and they were brought to MCC in October’ 1995. Fire staff of Market Committee, Chandigarh was also brought on the record of MCC in January’ 1999. It was made clear while bringing fire staff of Market Committee to MCC that all the members of the cadre would be on the tail. A confusion erupted with respect to promotion of members of different offices brought to MCC. The post-wise status of different offices was as below:- Name of Post Fireman Leading Fireman Sub-Fire Officer Station Fire Officer Chief Fire Officer CFS 137 23 -- 04 01 Breakup Market Committee NAC 08 02 01 -- -- 16 01 -- -- -- 4. MCC created 6 posts of Leading Fireman and 1 post of Sub- Fire Officer. There was no post of Sub-Fire Officer with NAC as well as Chandigarh Fire Services (in short ‘CFS’). The respondent decided to DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.09.17 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9016-2007 -3- promote officials brought from different sources as per their own cadre strength. With respect to 6 posts of Leading Fireman created by MCC, it was decided that posts would be divided proportionately. It is apt to notice here that strength of petitioners as Firemen was 16 and there was only 1 promotional post. Strength of Firemen brought from CFS was 137 and they had 23 posts of Leading Fireman. MCC decided to retain posts as brought by members from their parent cadre. The petitioners for all intents and purposes were senior to private respondents, thus, they were of the opinion that they should be promoted prior to members of other sources. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent was of the opinion that promotion should be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit with respect to newly created posts. The petitioners joined service in 1991 and their parent department merged with MCC so they for all purposes were originally born in MCC. The private respondents were brought from CFS in 1995, thus, they were juniors and could not be promoted prior to them. The respondent adopted Policy of proportionate promotion from 2007 to 2015 and resorted to seniority- cum-merit from 2015. The intent of respondent was to deny benefit of promotion to the petitioners. The private respondents despite being juniors were promoted prior to petitioners 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submit that posts brought from different sources were kept intact. MCC created 6 posts of Leading Fireman. The principle of proportionate promotion was applied for additional posts created by MCC. With respect to other posts, the members were promoted as per their parent department’s posts. There DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.09.17 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9016-2007 -4- were 23 posts of Leading Fireman in the cadre of CFS. There was only one post of Leading Fireman in the cadre of NAC. Had petitioners been promoted against 23 posts of Leading Fireman brought by members of CFS, there would have been injustice with members of CFS because they must have lost opportunity of promotion because of merger. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 8. From the perusal of record, it is evident that on creation of MCC, Firemen of different departments were brought to MCC. Firemen were working with NAC, CFS and Market Committee. While bringing Fireman of Market Committee, it was made clear that they would be at the tail of seniority list of Firemen of CFS. Resultantly, two separate seniority lists were prepared. One list comprised petitioners and another Firemen of CFS and Market Committee. There was only one post of Leading Fireman brought by petitioners from their parent department whereas Fireman of CFS brought 23 posts of Leading Fireman. Similarly, Firemen of Market Committee brought 2 posts of Leading Fireman and there were only 8 Fireman. There were a lot of promotional opportunities for Fireman of Market Committee and CFS, whereas, promotional avenues for petitioners were negligible. 9. The petitioners are claiming that being senior they should be promoted prior to private respondents. They are claiming that their parent department and MCC is one and same organization. They had born in MCC in 1991. It is only members of CFS and Market Committee who have merged in MCC. In other words, the petitioners are claiming that they remained in their own home whereas private respondents were DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.09.17 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9016-2007 -5- outsiders and brought to petitioners’ home. The petitioners are ignoring the fact that they were having only 1 post of Leading Fireman i.e. promotional post. The private respondents brought 23 posts of Leading Fireman. If contention of petitioners is accepted that they being seniors should be promoted prior to Firemen of CFS, it would amount to devouring promotional posts of Firemen of CFS. They would be at a disadvantageous position without their fault just because their cadre was merged with MCC. The respondent rightly decided to promote petitioners as per promotional posts brought by them. The respondent- MCC applied principle of proportionate with respect to 6 posts created by it. The other posts were not created by MCC, thus, members were promoted as per their original source. The contention of petitioners that in 2015 respondent has adopted principle of seniority-cum-merit and same principle must have been applied prior to 2015 is misconceived. The private respondents were promoted during 2006-10. The respondent- MCC has brought 2011 Rules in force from 15.06.2015. The problem of cross-utilization of posts seems to be resolved during long tenure of 1994 to 2015, thus, respondent has adopted policy which is universally adopted for promotion. 10. In the wake of above factual position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant petitions deserve to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. 11.
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Yes/No Yes/No 17.09.2025 Deepak DPA DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.09.17 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document