60 supdts reverted, govt work to be hit

Ruchika M Khanna

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 30

Important government work in the Civil Secretariat - the seat of power in the state – came to a halt today with the government forced to revert 60 superintendents, posted in as many departments, to senior assistants. The worse is that nobody knows for how long these posts will remain vacant, and the work will continue to suffer.

The reversion orders will impact work in the Education branch, Finance, Irrigation, PCS branch, Home, Vigilance, Planning, Industries, Health departments, among others. Since each case is dealt by a senior assistant, who then refers it to the superintendents for taking a final call on each file. The vacancy in these 60 departments, created after today’s order, reverting these officers, is likely to lead to several proposals getting struck. Already, the government is facing a shortage of clerical staff.

The state government has decided to approach the court again, taking the plea that government functioning will suffer. A top official in the General Administration Department, told The Tribune that they were approaching the court, asking for either the stay on holding promotions be vacated; or to allow these officials to continue to work as superintendents, till the time the issue of seniority list of senior assistants was decided.

These 60-odd superintendents in the Civil Secretariat have been reverted following a directive by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had stayed the holding of a departmental promotion committee (DPC), for promoting any senior assistant to superintendents, till the time the controversy over the seniority list of all senior assistants is decided. The DPC was held by the government earlier this year, after the Advocate General Office gave an opinion saying that the stay on holding the DPC was for a limited period and was no longer in force.

The DPC was held and 60 senior assistants were promoted as superintendents. However, the holding of DPC was challenged in the court, and clarification was sought as to whether the stay on holding the DPC was in force. The HC ruled that ‘There is no clarification which can be given in the given set of circumstances. Ordinarily the order would construe to mean continuous deferment till the time the order is varied specifically”.