G.R. Majithia, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner has impugned the order of his premature retirement from service dated June 6, 1989 passed by Respondent No. 1, in this, writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) REFERENCE to a few relevant facts is necessary for resolving the dispute. The Petitioner did his M.S. in Medical Microbiology, Bacteriology, Virology from Pennsylvania University (U.S.A.) and thereafter did his Ph.D. there from, He has published a large number, of papers and has been on the teaching, faculty of the University of Pennsylvania, U.S.A. (Jefferson Medical Centre) and the P.G.I., Chandigarh. He taught M.D. and M.S. students in U.S.A. and India. He established and organized the Department of Microbiology, Virology, Parasitology at the P.G.I., Chandigarh. In the year 1968, Respondent. No. 1 advertised six posts in Punjab Civil Medical Services Class I, including the one in the Specialty of Bacteriology. The Petitioner applied for the post and was selected by the Punjab Public Service Commission. He was appointed to PCMS Class I post on. December 6, 1968; Since he was not granted promotions due to him he moved this Court through Civil Writ Petition No. 977 of 1987 and the same was disposed of by this Court on February 6, 1989. The relevant extract of this order reads thus: (i) That C.W.P. No. 3877 of 1970 filed by Dr. P.K. Narang against the appointment of Dr. K.S. Thind in PCMS I was dismissed by the High Court, - -vide its judgment dated 31st May, 1977. The stand of the State of Punjab then was that the Petitioner, Dr. K.S. Thind fulfilled all the qualifications though he was not possessing the basic medical degree of M.B.B.S. Although no findings were recorded that M.B.B.S. degree was necessary for appointment to PCMS Class I under 1940 Rules, which were then prevalent and under which Dr. Thind was appointed, therefore Dr. Thind could not be termed as usurper. (ii) That the authorities concerned considered the representations of Dr. Thind and recommended the inclusion of the post in PCMS Class I. Instead of complying with the orders of the Minister, the State of Punjab granted selection grade and non -practising allowance to Dr. Prithipal Singh ignoring the case of the Petitioner, Dr. Thind. Again on July 1, 1983, Dr. Prithipal Singh was appointed as Deputy Director. Further on January 24, 1986, he was promoted as Joint Director. At all these stages, the case of the Petitioner, Dr. Thind, was not considered for promotion. Dr. Thind should not be deprived of similar benefits on such ex -cadre posts. Ordinarily stagnations in Government service is not contemplated. When the Petitioner, Dr. Thind, has chances of getting selection grade as well as promotion to different posts in the service when he joined the same, he. should be allowed similar benefits even in ex -cadre posts and such benefits and promotion from the dates he would have otherwise got such service benefits if he had remained in the PCMS Class I. Depriving the Petitioner, Dr. Thind of such service benefits as were promised to him at the time of his induction into service would amount to manifest injustice to the Petitioner. In this manner, the members of the service would not be effected at all and due justice would be done to the Petitioner, Dr. Thind. (iii) For the reasons recorded above, the petition is allowed with costs. The Respondents are directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for all the service benefits such as grant of selection grade and promotions on such dates when juniors to the Petitioner were granted such benefits in PCMS Class I. Against the judgment rendered in Civil Writ Petition No. 977 of 1987, Respondent No. 1 preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 515 of 1989 and Civil Misc. No. 7559 of 1989 for suspending operation of the judgment of the Single Judge. The Letters Patent appeal as well as the civil miscellaneous application were heard by a Division Bench on May 4, 1989 and the following order was passed: Notice. We have formally admitted the LPA but we are satisfied that the learned Judge has appreciated the matter more from justice angle and he felt that the Officer deserved some special treatment and it is in those circumstances that he had given certain directions. We do hope that pending LPA, the Government will take into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and make suitable orders so that the Government orders could stand the Courts orders. However, we make it clear that there is no interim stay. The matter to come up on 17th July,. 1989. The Petitioner was expecting promotion orders pursuant to the directions given by the learned Single Judge of this Court while deciding C.W.P. No. 977 of 1987 and in the light of the directions given by the Motion Bench in L.P.A. No. 515 of 1989, but Respondent No. 1 instead of granting him the relief as mentioned in these orders, issued the impugned order dated June 6, 1989, ordering his premature retirement from service. He further alleges that during the course of hearing in C.W.P. No. 977 of 1987 and L.P.A. No. 515 of 1989, it was never suggested at any stage that he was unfit for any of the promotions because of the adverse entries in the annual confidential reports. The impugned order is wholly arbitrary. If the service record of the other officers who are continuing in service, including that of the present Director, Health and Family Welfare, is compared with the Petitioner's, it will be found that the Petitioner had better record of service. He alleges that the impugned order in, fact has been passed to defeat the directions given in the writ petition and the Letters Patent appeal referred to above.
(3.) THE impugned order was passed by Respondent No. 1, but the written statement has been filed by Dr. H.S. Aneja, PCMS -1, Deputy Director, Health & Family Welfare, Punjab, Chandigarh, on behalf of the Respondents. It would have been proper if the written statement on behalf of Respondent No. 1 had been filed by the Secretary of the concerned Department to justify the impugned order. I do not want to express any opinion on this score since the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents produced the original record for my perusal.;