G.S. Singhvi, J. - (1.) This is a petition for quashing the order dated 12.2.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 280-CH of 2000 Sher Singh v. Union of India and others .
(2.) The facts of the case are that while working as Senior Clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh, the petitioner was appointed as Taxation Inspector by transfer vide order dated 19..3.1984 subject to the condition of passing the departmental examination within a period of three years. Likewise, respondent No. 4 Sher Singh, who was working as Steno/Typist in Chandigarh Administration Secretariat, was appointed as Taxation Inspector w.e.f. 25.1.1985 on transfer basis subject to the condition of passing the departmental examination. Both of them passed the departmental examination within the stipulated period, but respondent No. 4 was confirmed as Taxation Inspector w.e.f. 26.5.1986 prior to the petitioner and on that account, he became senior in terms of Rule 9 of the Punjab Excise Subordinate Services Rules', 1943 (for short, the 1943 Rules). After about three years, the Finance Secretary, Chandigarh Administration issued order dated 26.7.1989 vide which he empowered respondent No. 4 to act as Assessing Authority under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The petitioner and two others challenged that order by filing an application under Section 19(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, the Act). By an order dated 10.10.1985 the Tribunal dismissed their application. Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 25403 of 1995 filed against the Tribunal order was dismissed by the Supreme Court as withdrawn on 5.2.1996 with the observation that no opinion was being expressed on the validity of Rule 9 of the 1943 Rules. Thereafter, the petitioner and his co-applicant filed a fresh application under Section 19(1) of the 'Act challenging the vires of Rule 9 of the 1943 Rules which was registered as O.A. No. 234-CH of 1996. The same is pending consideration before the Tribunal. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed another application under Section 19(1) of the Act seeking a direction for filling up the post of Excise and Taxation Officer by promotion. The same was dismissed by the Tribunal, but the writ petition filed by the petitioner and Shri S.K. Bhandari for challenging that order, which was registered as CWP No. 9408 of 1997 was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court in the following terms:- "For the foregoing reasons, we allow this writ petition and hold that Punjab Excise and Taxation Deptt. State Service (Class II) Rules, 1956, read along with the amendment as noticed above, which are applicable to the Taxation Inspectors and other Ministerial Staff in the State of Punjab, would be applicable for filling up the posts of ETOs. in U.T. Chandigarh. The post by promotion would be filled as per the percentage mentioned in the amendment amongst the different categories. We are told that out of six posts of Excise and Taxation Officers, two are being held by the promotees. As per the rules, out of the six posts three posts can be held by the promotees in the ratio amongst the different categories mentioned in the rules. The writ petition is allowed to the extent that the order of the Tribunal dated June 30, 1977 copy Annexure P-8 would stand modified to the above extent. The official respondents are directed to fill in the post of ETOs by promotion as indicated above." In the purported compliance of the direction given by the High Court, the Finance Secretary-cum-Secretary, Excise & Taxation Department, Chandigarh Administration issued order dated 25.1.2000 promoting the petitioner as Excise and Taxation Officer on ad hoc basis subject to the finalisation of the draft amendment of the Punjab Excise and Taxation Department (State Service (Class-ll) Rules, 1956. Respondent No. 4 challenged the petitioner's promotion by filing an application under Section 19(1) of the Act which was registered as OA No. 280-CH of 2000. The same has been allowed by the Tribunal with a direction to the official respondents to consider the case of the applicant (respondent No.4 herein) for promotion to the post of Excise & Taxation Officer from the date the petitioner was promoted as such and grant him consequential benefits.
(3.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.2.2001 passed by the Tribunal on the ground that during the pendency of OA No. 234-CH of 1996 involving challenge to the vires of Rule 9 of the 1943 Rules, the Tribunal could not have issued the impugned direction by treating respondent No. 4 senior to him.;