UNTWALIA. J. - (1.) IN these 13 appeals by special leave the appellants are (1) the State of Punjab, (2) Union of INdia, Respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 519/1970 and the sole respondent in each of the remaining 12 appeals are the concerned Government servants. The said 13 Government servants along with two more filed 15 writ petitions to challenge order dated the 28/10/1966 made by the Government of the erstwhile undivided State of Punjab. Their writ applications were allowed by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, 15 Letters Patent appeals were filed by the appellants. They have been dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court, 13 appeals have been brought to this Court and not the other two. Since the Division Bench of High Court has disposed of all the 15 Letters Patent appeals by a common judgment, to avoid confusion in the statement of facts we think it better to state in a chart form the number of the Civil Appeal, the corresponding number of the L. P. A. and the name of the Government servant concerned. JUDGEMENT_242_3_1976Html1.htm Civil Appeals of 1970L. P. As. of 1968Name of the Govt. Servants 518286Balbir Singh 519327Bhagwan Singh 520340Surmukh Singh 521368Dasaundi Ram 522374Jagdish Singh 523375R. R. Bhanot 524376Surat Singh 525377Shamsher Singh 526378Bakhatawar Singh 527379Jodh Singh 528380Kartar Singh 529502Gurcharan Singh 530511Gurbux Singh nil289Devdutta nil328Sushil Kumar Khallar At the outset it may be stated that the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 521 Dasaundi Ram is dead and that appeal has abated on that account. Bhagwan Singh, respondent in Civil Appeal No. 519 does not seem to be in service any longer and nobody has appeared in this Court on his behalf. Out of the remaining 11 respondents we were informed at the Bar, that the 7 respondents in Civil Appeals 522 to 527 and 529 have since retired from service. Only 4 of the respondents in Civil Appeals 518, 320, 528 and 530 are still in service.
(2.) RESPONDENTS Balbir Singh, Surmukh Singh, Dasaundi Ram, Jagdish Singh, Surat Singh, Kartar Singhand Gurbux Singh were promoted and appointed on officiating basis as Sub-Divisional Officers in the Punjab Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads Branch) on various dates between 30-7-1960 to 10-5-1963. RESPONDENTS R. R. Bhanot, Jodh Singh and Gurcharan Singh were so appointed between dates 17-12-1957 and 10-12-1959. RESPONDENTS Shamsher Singh and Bakhtawar Singh were promoted on 22-10-1956 and 1-3-1956 respectively. Respondent Kartar Singh was working as Planning Assistant-cum-Draftsman while the other respondents were Overseers before they were appointed as officiating Sub. Divisional Officers. By the impugned order dated 28/10/1966 the then Government of the erstwhile Punjab State reverted them to their original rank. The orders of their revision were challenged by the said respondents on the ground that they were governed by the Punjab Service of Engineers, Buildings and Road Branch (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1942 (for brevity, the 1942 Rules). They claimed that they had become automatically confirmed as members of the service under the said Rules and could not be reverted without complying with the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and the other statutory Rules relating to disciplinary matters. This was the only point which succeeded before the learned single Judge and he allowed all the writ applications, it appears, without fully appreciating the distinction of facts of the various cases for the acceptance of this ground. Respondent Bhagwan Singh was appointed as temporary Assistant Engineer on completion of his six months training period with effect from 3/12/1960. His service was terminated by the then Punjab Government by order dated 28/10/1966 on the ground of his having been found unsuitable for appointment to P. S. E. Class II (B and R. Branch). Bhagwan Singh also relied upon 1942 Rules before the learned single Judge and succeeded. The Division Bench has very carefully and elaborately considered the application of the 1942 Rules to the cases of the respondents. It has disagreed with the single Judge's view. After copiously quoting from the 1942 Rules, the High Court in appeal has referred to the Punjab Service of Engineers Class I. P. W. D. Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules 1960 (for brevity, the 1960 Rules) regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the P. S. E. Class I service. The 1960 Rules came into force on and from 18/03/1960. It had repealed the 1942 Rules by Rule 24 with a saving clause in the proviso appended thereto. The high Court then referred to the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II P. W. D. (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1965 (for brevity, Class II 1965 Rules). The said Rules came into force from 19/02/1965. The stand on behalf of the State of Punjab in the High Court was: (1) that the 1942 Rules did not govern the cases of the respondents as the said Rules applied to class I service consisting of Assistant Executive Engineers and officers of higher ranks only; (2) that the respondents had to be taken in P. S. E. Class II service in accordance with Rule 6 (5) (b) of Class II 1965 Rules read with paragraph 1(d) of Appendix 'G' of the said Rules, in consultation with the Punjab Public Service Commission, (3) that since the Commission did not find them suitable for being admitted to that service, they were reverted to their substantive rank in accordance with the terms and conditions of their service and not by way of punishment.
(3.) THE High Court made a comparative study of 1942 Rules, 1960 Rules and Class II 1965 Rules and came to the conclusion that the officiating Sub. Divisional Officers, as the respondents were, not being Assistant Executive Engineers, were not governed by the 1942 Rules. None of them had claimed that he was holding the rank of Assistant Executive Engineer in any capacity. THE view of the learned single Judge that the Sub. Divisional Engineers were included in the category of Assistant Executive Engineers did not find favour with the Bench. THE bench further pointed out that the respondents should be divided into three categories: (a) those who were promoted subsequently to the repeal of the 1942 Rules. (b) those who were promoted within three years preceding such repeal and (c) those who were promoted more than three years prior to such repeal. THE respondents promoted on dates between 30--1960 ad 10-5-1963 fell within the first category. Obviously they could not claim the protection on the basis of 1942 Rules. THE three respondents who were appointed as officiating Sub. Divisional Officers between 17-12-1957 and 10-12-1959 fell within the second category. THE High Court rightly held that they had not completed the maximum period of three years probation to acquire the substantive posts of Sub. Divisional Officers fixed under Rule 12 (3) of 1942 Rules, even assuming that they could take advantage of the same. Respondents Shamsher Singh and Bakhatawar Singh had been promoted in the year 1956 and fell within the third category. THE Division Bench pointed out that in their case the difficulty in the application of the 1942 Rules was that they were promoted in the erstwhile Patiala and East Punjab States Union. It could not be shown that there were any statutory Rules governing their conditions of service and appointments as Sub-Divisional Officers. Since on the date of the impugned order dated 28-10-1966 they had put in more than 10 years of service as officiating Sub. Divisional Officers, their case was considered to be a hard one. But for the purpose of the law they could not be given the advantage of the 1942 Rules and obviously so. It is plain that the case of none of the respondents was covered by the 1942 Rules. All the respondents had to be absorbed and admitted to P. S. E. Class II service in accordance with Class II 1965 Rules and that required the approval of the Public Service Commission. Since Commission did not find them suitable, they had to be reverted to their substantive ranks. On a consideration of a large number of authorities the High Court has rightly come to the conclusion that their reversion was not hit on account of the non-compliance with the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution or any Rules governing the disciplinary action. The reversion was not by way of punishment. This aspect of the matter is now squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1975) 1 SCR 814;