Pradeep Kant, J. - (1.) The petitioner being aggrieved by the non-inclusion of his services rendered in the Civil Courts at Lucknow for the period 14.11.1964 to 6.8.1975 and for the period commencing 7.8.1975 to 21.2.1978 during which period he was working with M/s. Scooters India Ltd., Lucknow for the purpose of grant of post retiral benefits including pension etc., has approached this Court claiming that his continuity in service should be counted from 14.11.1964 till he reaches the age of superannuation. During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner has retired while working as Private Secretary in the High Court.
(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Stenographer in the Civil Courts at Lucknow by means of the order dated 14.11.1964 against a substantive vacancy on a permanent post. While the petitioner was working in the Civil Courts an advertisement was published by the Allahabad High Court inviting applications for filling up the vacancies of Personal Assistants. The petitioner can opt for his absorption in the service of the Company or he may choose otherwise. The District Judge thereafter did not give any response to this observation made in the letter by the Company but on 16.7.1976 another letter was sent to the Managing Director of the Company with the subject "Deputation of Sri Harish Chandra Srivastava, Stenographer". In this letter the District Judge apprised the Managing Director that he was facing shortage of Stenographers in the Civil Court and, therefore, the petitioner, who was allowed to join the Company on 6.8.1975 on deputation may be reverted to his parent department. A request was made to relieve the petitioner and direct him to joint at the earliest. The letter, however, further stated that in case the petitioner wants to continue in the Company, he may submit his resignation forthwith so that another person may be appointed in his place on regular basis. Since the petitioner was not relieved from the Company and the petitioner had intact his lien in the parent department as per orders passed by the District Judge, Lucknow on 6.8.1975, the petitioner, being desirous of absorption in the Company, sent a letter on 14.8.1976 which has been termed as 'letter of resignation mentioning that he was tendering his resignation from his service from the parent department with effect from 16.8.1976 or any other subsequent date as may be fixed by the District Judge with a view to seek permanent absorption in the Company. This resignation was never accepted by the District Judge and the petitioner continued to work on deputation in the Company. However, a letter was written to the Chief Personnel Manager of the Company by the District Judge informing that the lien of the petitioner has been terminated with effect from 14.8.1976. this communication has reference of the resignation letter of the petitioner but it did not say any where as to when the resignation was accepted. Petitioner's case is that he was compelled to send his resignation although when he was on deputation, the question of asking for any resignation did not arise. In any case, his further case is that the resignation having never been accepted, he would be deemed to be in continuous service of the parent department. The petitioner thus continue to work with the Company till the date when he was appointed on the post of Personal Assistant in the High Court i.e., 1.2.1978 in pursuance of the selection which was held in the year 1968. On being appointed on the post of Personal Assistant in the High Court, the petitioner joined the services in the High Court on 22.2.1978. The petitioner was later on promoted as Private Secretary on 26.5.1984 on which post he was confirmed on ,1.7.1989. It was during the fixation of the petitioner's pay in the scale admissible to the Personal Assistants in the High Court it revealed that the period in question commencing 14.11.1964 to 6.8.1975 during which the petitioner worked in Lucknow Judgeship and thereafter the period commencing 7.8.1975 to 21.2.1978 during which the petitioner worked on deputation with the Company has been excluded for the purpose of fixation of pay on the post of Personal Assistant. The petitioner made a representation on 31.5.1979 for regularization of his services during that period, which representation was rejected by the Registrar, which communication was made to the petitioner by means of the letter dated applied against the said post on 4.3.1968. However, in pursuance of the selection in the year 1968, the posts were filled in the year 1978 and consequently the petitioner was also appointed on the post of Personal Assistant on 1st February, 1978 and since then the petitioner had continuously worked in the High Court and has retired on reaching the age of superannuation from the post of Private Secretary.
(3.) Though the selection for the post of Personal Assistant in the High Court was held in the year 1968 but the result was not declared for a long time i.e. till 1978 but in the meantime M/s. Scooters India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company), which is a Government Undertaking, notified certain vacancies of Steno/Typists against which the petitioner also applied through proper channel with the consent of the then District Judge, Lucknow. The petitioner was selected by the Company and he was sent on deputation to the Company. He was appointed by means of the order dated 25.7.1975. This order has been brought on record which indicates that the Petitioner was appointed on a consolidated salary of Rs. 650/- per month and was placed on probation for a period of six months with a rider that in case his services were not found satisfactory, his services can be terminated with one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof without assigning any reason and even after satisfactory completion of probation, the services of the petitioner can be terminated without assigning any reason with one months notice on either side or one month's pay in lieu thereof. The order was couched in such language which indicated that this was an appointment on probation prescribing the age of retirement as 58 years but the said order in substance was treated to be an order of deputation and, therefore, the then District Judge, Lucknow by means of the order dated 6.8.1975 while relieving the petitioner to join the new post directed and maintained his lieu in the Civil Court. The relieving order (Annexure-1) specifically states as follows : "........................................... Sri Srivastava has made request before me that he may be relieved to join the new post and his lien may be retained in this office which has been allowed.";