J.S. Sekhon, J. - (1.) Shri Satya Paul Dua, petitioner, was appointed as overseer in the Municipal Committee, Mandi Dabwali in the year 1953. In pursuance of the instructions of the Government of Punjab issued vide letter Annexure P. 1 dated 22.6.1964, Class II and III Municipal Committee in the State were authorised to promote their Sectional Officers having more than 10 years of service with clean and good record as Municipal Engineer. Accordingly, the petitioner was promoted as Municipal Engineer vide resolution No. 4 dated 14.8.1964 of the Municipal Committee. This appointment was approved by the Government of Punjab in exercise of its powers under Section 38(2) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 read with Rule 11 of the Punjab Municipal Rules vide letter Annexure P.2. This appointment was again approved by the President of India vide Annexure P. 3. The petitioner continued working as Municipal Engineer and made representation to the Government of Punjab for giving him pay scale applicable to the Municipal Engineers. This request of the petitioner was accepted by the Administrator who worte to the Sub Divisional Officer, Sirsa vide letter Annexure P.4 dated 22.4.1975 for the grant of grade to the petitioner after getting the approval of the State Government. Thereafter the Government continued sitting over the matter despite issuing repeated reminders by the Administrator. On 18.1.1979 vide letter Annexure P. 5, all of a sudden the sanction granted to the petitioner as Municipal Engineer was rejected and he was ordered to be given a personal grade of Rs. 450-15-600/- as Overseer. The petitioner again made representation Annexure P. 6 to the Government and in protest did not accept the new grade but continued drawing the old grade. The State Government, however, failed to respond to his letter and ultimately vide Annexure P. 7 dated 18.3.1980 the petitioner was designated as Overseer instead of Municipal Engineer of the Municipal Committee. It is further averred that as the respondents could not find any justification for their act of reverting the confirmed employee without any reason after a lapse of 13 years, they issued the petitioner a charge-sheet on 28.1.1980 regarding his absence from duty in spite of the fact that a medical certificate was submitted to the Municipal Committee in support of his illness. The petitioner gave a detailed reply dated 20.2.1980 to this charge-sheet, but without considering the same, the Municipal Committee passed a resolution for retiring the petitioner compulsorily on 18.3.1980. In consequence of this resolution the petitioner was served with notice Annexure P. 8 for compulsory retirement on 15.4.1980 and the petitioner has been relieved from service on 14.7.1980 afternoon.
(2.) In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the order of the State Government Annexure R 5 not fixing his pay in the grade of Municipal Engineers as well as notice Annexure P. 7 reverting him to the post of Overseer from Municipal Engineer besides notice Annexure R 8 of compulsory retirement on multifarious grounds.
(3.) In the return filed by Jagdish Rai Grover, Secretary of the Municipal Committee on behalf of respondent No. 2, it is averred that the present writ petition is not maintainable as it was filed after 18 months of the order Annexure P. 5. It is further maintained that the petitioner was not promoted to the post of Municipal Engineer but simply designated as such with the specific clarification that he will continue drawing salary of the post of Overseer and the allegations of the petitioner regarding his charge-sheeting were controverted besides maintaining that the compulsory retirement of the petitioner was well justified in the interest of public as from October 1979, the petitioner had been absent without any leave and that this period was treated as absent from duty vide order dated 2.5.1980 of the Administrator and the petitioner was served with this order on 8.5.1980. Again the petitioner applied for leave from 4.5.1980 to 10.5.1980 and thereafter telegraphically up til 15.5.1980. Thus, it was maintained that on account of the bad health of the petitioner, the work of the Committee was suffering badly and it was considered in the public interest to retire him pre-maturally in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. It was also maintained that the permission of the Government for premature, retirement was not reacquired as per rules because the Municipal Committee was the appointing authority. A copy of the latest rules notified on 3.8.1976 by the Local Government Department of Haryana Government was also appended as Annexure R. 2/1.;