Y Media- The biggest South Asian Media House|Thursday, October 17, 2019
You are here: Home » Uncategorized » Punjab » Don’t implement seniority list of master cadre: HC
  • Follow Us!

Don’t implement seniority list of master cadre: HC 

Chandigarh, October 1

Just about 10 days after the Punjab and Haryana High Court (HC) ordered that seniority list of the master/mistress cadre would not be implemented in the case of about seven lecturers in the Punjab Education Department, Justice Arun Monga today extended the restrain order to the entire list.

The restrain order would remain in force till further directions. Estimates suggest over 50,000 employees will be affected eventually. The order came on a bunch of petitions argued by senior counsel Rajiv Atma Ram and Saurabh Arora.

Justice Monga asserted the Bench on a previous date of hearing had directed that an impugned order and the seniority list would not be given effect to regarding the petitioners till the next date of hearing. The order was passed on another petition filed against the state and other respondents by Naresh Kumar and other petitioners through Arora.


Justice Monga added the Bench, in another subsequent petition, observed it was expected of the respondents not to implement the seniority list impugned till the next date of hearing. But it was brought to the court’s notice that the official respondents were in the process of forthwith implementation of impugned seniority list.

Arora had contended that impugned seniority list was finalised on June 19. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed objections and also issued a legal notice through their counsel, but to no avail.

Arora also told the Bench that petitioners were appointed as masters in 1994 and 1996. In compliance of a judgment passed by the High Court, the seniority list was re-cast. Arora added there were specific directions that the representation of the aggrieved persons would be first decided before finalising the seniority list. But the direction was not complied with.

Arora added a legal notice dated July 12 was issued to underscore that their objections had not been dealt with before passing of the impugned order. But the respondents turned a blind eye to the legal notice.

Related posts: