Kasliwal, J. - (1.) Union of India and the Home Secretary Chandigarh Administration have filed this appeal by grant of special leave challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh dated March 3, 1988. The respondent, Shri S. K. Sharma was appointed initially as Assistant Professor on 24-9-1958 in the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh. He was promoted as Associate Professor on 23-10-1963. The respondent was then promoted as Professor (junior Scale) on temporary and ad hoc basis for a period of six months in the department of Irrigation and Hydraulics vide order dated 29-3-1969. The respondent was thereafter appointed as Professor (Junior Scale) on regular basis through U.P.S.C. vide order dated 28-6-1969 on probation for a period of two years in the Civil Engineering Departmerit of the College. The respondent relinquished the earlier charge of Professor (Junior Scale) of Irrigation and Hydraulics and assumed the charge of his new post with effect from the same date. However, since Dr. S. S. Sharma was holding the post of Professor (Junior Scale) in the Civil Engineering Department, the said post was not available to the respondent Sh. S. K. Sharma and as such the respondent was adjusted on ad hoc basis against the vacant post of Professor (P.G. Course) in the Department of Irrigation and Hydraulics in his own grade. The above interim arrangement was made on ad hoc basis till such time any regular selected candidate by the U.P.S.C. joined the post of Professor (P.G. Course) in the Department of Irrigation and Hydraulics. This appointment on ad hoc basis continued from 28-6-1969 to 14-2-1971 in the Department of Irrigation and Hydraulics and thereafter from 15-2-1971 to 29-9-1973 against the post of Professor (Senior Scale) in the Civil Engineering Department. The respondent was selected for appointment on regular basis as Professor (Senior Scale) w.e.f. 29-9-1973. The responent was not paid his pay and allowances for the period for which he worked against the post of Professor (P.G. Course) or (Senior Scale) on ad hoc basis. The respondent in these circumstances approached the Tribunal and was granted arrears of pay and allowances for the period 28-6-1969 to 29-9-1973 by the judgment of the Tribunal dated 12-6-1986 in Application No. T-159 of 1986.
(2.) Though the respondent was allowed the arrears of pay and allowance for the post of Professor (Senior Scale) in accordance with the above judgment of the Tribunal yet the respondent was not granted seniority on the post of Professor (Senior Scale) from the date of his ad hoc appointment on the said post from 28th June, 1969. It may, however, be noted that the Chandigarh Administration though sanctioned the grant of pay of Professor (Senior Scale) to the respondent for the period 28-6-1969 to 29-9-1973 but did not bestow any seniority to the respondent prior to 29-9-1973 when he was selected on regular basis for the post of Professor (Senior Scale). It is further important to note that though the respondent had appeared for interview for the post of Professor (P.G. Course) in the Irrigation and Hydraulics Department of the College before the U.P.S.C. in September, 1969 but he was rejected whereas one Dr. P. P. Rao was selected for the said post. As Dr. P. P. Rao joined the post on 15-2-1971 in the Irrigation and Hydraulics Department, the respondent was adjusted in his own scale of pay against the vacant post of Professor (Senior Scale) in the Civil Engineering Department on ad hoc basis as already mentioned above. The respondent himself in a letter dated 1-7-1977 addressed to the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh has stated as under. "It may be pointed out that ad hoc appointment has no effect on the seniority of staff members in the cadre and no supersession is involved by allowing the benefit of pay for the period I was appointed against higher post. This is a well established fact and have a large number of precedents itself."
(3.) The respondent in the above circumstances submitted an application before the Tribunal claiming his seniority on the post of Professor (Senior Scale) with effect from his ad hoc appointment dated 28-6-1969 which continued till his regular selection for the said post on 29-9-1973. The Tribunal vide its impugned order held that the respondent was given ad hoc appointment on the post of Professor (Senior Scale) from 1969 to 1973 after prior consultation with theU.P.S.C.and as such was entitled to claim his seniority from 28-6-1969. The Tribunal, however, observed that the grant of this relief would affect the interest of three/ four persons of the College who had been shown senior to the respondent in the seniority list as such the appellants (respondents before the Tribunal) to revise the seniority list taking the above into account and circulate the draft seniority list to all concerned inviting their objections, if any, before the seniority list was finalised. This course was considered to be necessary as the affected persons had not been made party respondents in the case before the Tribunal and it was necessary to give an opportunity to give their views in the matter and there should be no violation of the principles of natural justice and equity. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the appellants have come before this Court in appeal by grant of special leave.;