- (1.) - The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the Punjab Government on 15th July, 1968. He was, thereafter, given an option to join the Public Works Department [Buildings and Roads] [hereinafter referred to as 'PWD (B and R)'] of the said Government. He accepted the offer and resumed his duties in the new Department on l4th January, 1969. In 1972, the PWD [B and R] invited applications for direct recruitment for the post of Assistant Engineer. The petitioner applied for one of them and he was formally appointed as a direct recruit in the said Department on 18th August. 1972. On 30th September/6th October, 1972, the Irrigation Department passed formal order relieving him from the Department which in fact ought to have been done on l4th January, 1969 when the petitioner had opted to join the PWD [B and R]. It appears that on his appointment in the PWD [B and R] as a direct recruit, he was sent on deputation to the Chandigarh Administration [Engineering Department] on 7th October, 1972. In March, 1978, the petitioner made a request to the Chandigarh Administration to absorb him in their service by giving him the, benefit of service in the State Government right from 15h July, 1968. By their letter of 17th June, 1978, the Chandigarh Administration informed him that they were not agreeable to do so. On the other hand, the Administration informed him that since the absorption was at his request, it will affect his past service rendered in the Punjab State and he should give his consent for being placed at the bottom of the gradation list of officers of his category in the Chandigarh Adrninistration. However, within a few days thereafter, i.e., 30th June, 1978, the Administration sent another letter changing its earlier stand and stated that the petitioner's seniority on absorption shall be fixed as per the service rules which inter alia provides for appointment of an officer to the service by transfer from the State Government or the Central Government. The letter further stated as follows: "... . . . Such an appointment for obvious reasons is not to be treated as a direct appointment for the purpose of determining seniority. In short, Sh. Puranjit Singh will be entitled to count past service (in his parent State) in the matter of fixation of his seniority on absorption in Chandigarh Administration ......." Against this decision of the Chandigarh Administration, two writ petitions were filed by the employees affected by it. They were dismissed as being premature since by that time the seniority list was not prepared. On 9th February, 1979, the Chandigarh Administration passed an order to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Engineer [Civil] Class II in its Engineering Department on B and R side by transfer from the PWD [B and R] and it stated that the appointment is also subject to the provisions of Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II P.W.D. Rules, 1965. Against this transfer order, another writ petition was filed by some of the aggrieved employees. This writ petition was also dismissed since no seniority list was prepared, with a direction to the Administration to fix the seniority of the petitioner. On 14th January, 1980, a notification was issued by the Administration determining the seniority in accordance with Rule 12.5 of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class III P.W.D. Rules, 1965 giving him seniority w.e.f. 7th October, 1972. The notification stated that the Administration had considered all the circumstances of the case and had also kept the public interest in view in fixing the seniority with effect from that date. Against the fixation of his seniority w.e.f. 7th October, 1972, the petitioner made a representation on 15th January, 1980. While the said representation was pending, the petitioner preferred an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench challenging the order fixing his seniority on the ground that he was not given seniority on the basis of his past service from 1968. The Tribunal dismissed his application holding that he was not entitled to his past service being counted. Against the seniority given to the petitioner from 7th October, 1972, a writ petition was filed before the High Court by the aggrieved employees and this was later on transferred to the Tribunal and numbered as T.C. No. 5/80. The Tribunal decided the said application on 17th September, 1987 against the petitioner holding that it was not permissible to give the petitioner seniority w.e.f. 7th October, 1972 since the petitioner was absorbed in the service at his own request; hence his seniority should have been counted from the date of his absorption, i.e., 17th June, 1978. Against the said decision of the Tribunal both the Chandigarh Administration and the petitioner preferred Special Leave Petitions in this Court. By its decision dated 1st September, 1988, this Court held that under Rule 12.5, the Administration had power to give retrospective seniority and hence the seniority given to the petitioner w.e.f. 7th October, 1972 was valid. Thus, this Court by the said decision, confirmed the validity of the seniority given by the Administration to the petitioner from 7th October, 1972.
(2.) It appears that notwithstanding this decision, the petitioner continued to press his representation dated 15th January, 1980 made against the notification dated 14th January, 1980 giving him seniority from 7th October, 1972 and requesting for his seniority from 15th July, 1968. It appears that on this representation, the Home Secretary of the Chandigarh Administration on 14th May 1992, put up a note to the Adviser to the Administrater recommending the counting of seniority of the petitioner as Senior Divisional Engineer from 15th July, 1968. On 25th May, 1992, the Adviser to the Adimnistrater, wrote on this note "Please discuss". Thereafter, the Advisor discussed the matter with the Home Secretary and wrote on the said note as follows: "Discussed with H.S. Since the matter is sub-Judice we may not take any decision on the matter till the finalisation of the court cases." In other words, the question of counting of the period of service of the petitioner from 15th July, 1968 to 7th October, 1972 remained undecided and it remains undecided till today.
(3.) In the meanwhile, it appears that on his posting on deputation in the Chandigarh Administration on 7th October, 1972, the petitioner was sent on deputation by the Administration to the Housing Board. In the Housing Board, he held current duty-charge as Executive Engineer from the 4th October, 1977. Subsequently on 23rd December, 1980 he was appointed there as ad hoc Executive Engineer and became regular Executive Engineer there on 26th September, 1981. When he was holding the posts as current duty-charge as Executive Engineer and as ad hoc Executive Engineer in the Housing Board, his substantive post was that of Assistant Engineer. On 11th May, 1984, he was transferred back to the Engineering Department of the Chandigarh Administration as Executive Engineer. In this conneetion, it may be noted here that he became eligible to the post of Executive Engineer in his parent Department (Engineering Department of the Chandigarh Administration) on 7th October, 1980, i.e., after service as Assistant Engineer for eight years counted from 7th October, 1972. He was appointed to the said post on 23rd December, 1980 on ad hoc basis for six months. On 15th October, 1981, the promotion was regularised. Again, he became eligible to hold the post of Superintending Engineer there after seven years of service as Executive Engineer under Rule 9, on 15th October, 1988. However, in the said Department the first vacancy in the post of Superintending Engineer, after he became eligible to the said post occurred only on 1st December, 1988. He was appointed to the said post initially on ad hoc basis with effect from that date. The said appointment was regularised with effect from that date later on. It is not disputed that thereafter, the petitioner has been promoted in the Housing Board as Chief Engineer in due course as per the Rules.;