- (1.) HON'ble Rajiv Sharma, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) PETITIONER alongwith other persons, on the basis of recommendation by the duly constituted selection committee, were offered appointment on the post of Assistant Boring Technicians by the Executive Engineer (Minor Irrigation Depart ment) Faizabad and in pursuance to the said appointment order, the petitioner started working at Gonda. By the order dated 26. 7. 1988, the opposite parties, in violation of the principles of natural justice, not only terminated the services of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons but also cancelled the entire se lection. Aggrieved by the order dated 26. 7. 1988, the petitioner and other similarly situated Assistant Boring Technicians filed writ petitions which were numbered as writ petition No. 6991/ss of 1988 and Writ Petition No. 6854/ss of 1988. In writ petition No. 6854 of 1988 an interim order was passed staying the operation of the impugned termination order and as such the petitioners of the said writ petition were allowed to work whereas in writ petition No. 6991 of 1988 an interim order was passed to the effect that if the posts are available, the petitioners shall be allowed to work but as the petitioner was one of the petitioners in writ petition No. 6991/ss of 1998 and on account of non-availability of post, he was not al lowed to work. Both the writ petitions were heard together and by means of a common judgment and order dated 20. 11. 2003, the orders of termination were quashed and as regard the petitioners of writ petition No. 6991 of 1998, it was directed that the petitioners shall be reinstated on the existing available vacan cies but would not be entitled to get any arrears of salary. It was also provided that since petitioners of writ petition No. 6854 of 1988 were continuing, they shall continue to receive their salary in accordance with law. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he has been allowed to work on the post vide order dated 7. 3. 2005 but his reinstatement is being considered as re-appointment, as a result of which the salary of the petitioner has been fixed at initial level of pay scale whereas similarly situated other employees have been given all the service benefits, namely, seniority, pay fixation and increment etc. Not only this, the Executive Engineer has also ordered that the intervening period i. e. the date of termination tjll the date of passing of order dated 7. 3. 2005 will not be counted towards pensionary benefits. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the imposition of this condition is absolutely illegal and without any foundation as the order of termination has been quashed, the petitioner is entitled for seniority and other service benefits from the date of his appointment and not from any subsequent date i. e. 7. 3. 2005. Thus anything contrary to the same is not only against the settled law but is also against the final judgment dated 20. 11. 2003 passed by this Court in writ-petition No. 6991/ss of 1988 and 68547 SS of 1988.
(3.) TO strengthen his argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of Gurpreet Singh v. Sfafe of Punjab and others, (2002) 9 SCC 492, wherein it has been observed as under "having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on examining the materials on record, we fail to understand as to how the continuity of service could be denied once the plaintiff is directed to be reinstated in service on setting aside the order of termination. It is not a case of fresh appointment, but it is a case of reinstatement. That being the position, direction of the High Court that the plaintiff will not get continuity of service cannot be sustained and we set aside that part of the impugned order. " Refuting the contentions advanced by the petitioner's Counsel, it has been stated by the Standing Counsel that the petitioner and other similarly situated employees were given appointment as and when vacancy/post occurred. It has also been stated that after the judgment passed by this Court, the competent authority, which in the present case is the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, passed an order on 7. 3. 2005 directing reinstatement of the petitioner. Further, after rein statement, the controversy in respect of seniority, service period, calculation of pension etc. cannot be raised. Lastly, it has been submitted that the judgment and order dated 20. 11. 2003 has fully been complied with and there is no illegality or infirmity in the appointment order of the petitioner.;