Bal Raj Tuli, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner was working as Executive Engineer, Beas Project, on November 1, 1966 - -the appointed day on which the reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Punjab took place. He belonged to Punjab Service of Engineers Class I and was an employee of the composite State of Punjab as it existed prior to November 1, 1966. From that date, he was provisionally allocated to the State of Punjab, - -vide Secretary to Government, Punjab's letter No. 13767/E/SPL. dated October 30, 1966. He was finally allocated to the State of Punjab with effect from November 1, 1966, - -vide Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works, Punjab's letter No. 11157 -12157/ E, dated September 4, 1968. Copies of these letters are Annexures 'A' and 'B' to the writ petition.
(2.) ON February 16, 1967, the Petitioner applied for earned leave from April 2, 1967, to April 30, 1967, for domestic reasons. That leave was sanctioned by the Chief Engineer (Drainage), Irrigation Works, Punjab Government, by an order, dated April 15, 1967. In this order it was certified that "after expiry of leave the officer is likely to return to the post and station carrying the same rate of pay and allowance." The Petitioner was, however, relieved with effect from the afternoon of June 16, 1967, when he handed over charge to Shri Rattan Singh, Executive Engineer, who was to hold that charge in addition to his own duty. The earned leave sanctioned for the Petitioner was of 27 days and on July 13, 1967, he submitted a revised application on the prescribed form for 90 days' earned leave with effect from June 17, 1967, to September 14, 1967. This application was addressed to the Chief Engineer (Drainage), Irrigation Works, Chandigarh, but was sent through the proper channel, that is, the Chief Engineer, Beas Sutlej Link Administration. This application was not forwarded to the Chief Engineer (Drainage), Irrigation Works, but was dealt with in the Beas Sutlej Link Circle No. 1, wherein the Petitioner had been working before proceeding on leave. He was informed by a telegram sent by the Superintending Engineer of that Circle on August 11, 1967, that extension of leave beyond 16th August, 1967, was refused and the Petitioner was directed to join at once otherwise he was to be treated absent without leave. Copy of that telegram was endorsed to the Chief Engineer (Drainage) Irrigation Works, Punjab, with a request not to entertain any leave application from the Petitioner. The Petitioner, however, did not report for duty on or after August 16, 1967. Instead on September 14, 1967, he sent another application for earned leave of 120 days with effect from June 17, 1967 to October 14, 1967, with permission to stuff fix October 15, 1967, being Sunday. This application was addressed to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works, Chandigarh, but was sent through proper channel. Another application for leave was submitted by the Petitioner on October 15, 1967, to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works, Chandigarh, through proper channel, asking for leave on average pay for 63 days from October 15, 1967 to December 16, 1967. The Petitioner was informed by the Chief Engineer, Beas Sutlej Link Project, Sundrenagar, by letter, dated November 21, 1967 that a Government servant returning from leave is not entitled, in the absence of specific orders to that effect, to resume, as a matter of course, the post which he held before going on leave. As such, you should apply for leave to the Chief Engineer of your State". On November 29, 1967, the previous earned leave application submitted by the Petitioner were returned to him with the following remarks: As advised by Chief Engineer, BSL, you should apply to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works, Punjab, Chandigarh. On January 9, 1968, the Petitioner sent an application to the Chief Engineer, Punjab, Irrigation Works, Chandigarh, reading as under: In continuation of my previous advance application for earned leave from 17th June, 1967 to 14th October, 1967, i.e., 120 days submitted to your office on 14th September, 1967 and further application, dated 15th October, 1967 for leave on half average pay from 15th October, 1967 to 16th December, 1967 (63 days) I submit herewith my leave application in a consolidated form as per S.E., B.S.L. Admn. and Accounts Circle, Sunder Nagar letter No. 2819/PF, dated 18th November, 1967 (copy enclosed) for leave from 17th June 1967 to 14th October, 1967, i.e., 120 days earned leave and from 15th October, 1967 to 9th February, 1968 (119 days) half pay leave as admissible under Rules 8.116 and 8.119 of C.S.R. Volume I, Part I. Due to non -availability/short supply of building material like cement and bricks etc., I could not complete the whole work during my previous leave. It is, therefore, requested that my leave for 119 days as per form enclosed may kindly be extended. The letter of the Superintending Engineer, Beas, Sutlej Link Administration and Accounts Circle, to which a reference was made in the application, dated January 9, 1698, reads as under: The leave application for earned leave, etc., should be submitted to the Chief Engineer (D) Irrigation Works, Punjab, direct. The Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works, Punjab, did not take any action on that application as, according to him, the Petitioner was under the administrative control of the Beas Construction Board which had been constituted with effect from October 1, 1967. In paragraph 4 of the petition it has been stated that the Petitioner approached Respondents 1 and 2 before the expiry of his leave applied for for obtaining posting orders which was necessary because the leave had been originally sanctioned by the Chief Engineer, Punjab, and the Chief Engineer, Beas Sutlej Link Project had directed him to apply for extension of leave direct to the Chief Engineer, Punjab, Irrigation Works, as the General Manager, Beas Dam, had surrendered the Petitioner's services to the Punjab Government by letter No. 30272/BPA/3821/60, dated October 26, 1970. It is further stated that on return from leave the Petitioner, being a Gazetted Government servant, was required to seek the posting orders from the Punjab Government which was his appointing authority under Rules 8.45, 8.46 and 2.24 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I. No specific reply has been given to this paragraph by Respondents 1 and 2 in their return but Respondent 3 has admitted the same. Respondents 1 and 2 have, however, stated in the return that the Chief Engineer, Punjab (Irrigation Branch) sent a telegram, dated April 25, 1968, to the General Manager, Beas Dam Project, stating, "Shri Mangal Singh, X.E.N, working on Project on 1st November, 1966 is to continue there". The confirmation of the above telegram was sent by post on the same date to the General Manager, Beas Project with an endorsement in which it was made clear to him that the Petitioner was working as Executive Engineer on the Beas Project at the time of the reorganisation of the State of Punjab and, as such, all payments to such officers were the liability of the Project authorities. Copy of this letter was endorsed to the Petitioner directing him to report for duty to General Manager, Beas Project tilwara Township. The Petitioner insisted that he was an employee of the Punjab Government and not of the Beas Project and, therefore, posting orders should be issued to him by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works, Punjab, within that State. He did not report for duty to the Beas authorities. The various representations made by the Petitioner to Respondents 1 and 2 having failed, he filed the present writ petition for the issuance of appropriate writ, direction or order commanding Respondents 1 and 2 to issue the necessary posting orders to him as Executive Engineer, to direct the Respondents to pay to the Petitioner his entire salary and allowance etc., for the period commencing from the date of his report of return to duty on February 9, 1968, after the expiry of his leave till the posting order is given to him and to direct Respondents 1 and 2 to sanction the extension of leave applied for, i.e., from June 17, 1967 to February 9, 1968, as admissible to him under the rules expeditiously to enable him to claim his leave salary for the period. Separate written statements have been filed by Respondents 1 and 2 and Respondent 3. In a nut -shell the position of Respondents 1 and 2 is that the Petitioner was working as an Executive Engineer on the Beas Project on November 1, 1966, and although his allocation had been made to the State of Punjab, he continued to be engaged in the construction of that Project eversince that date and that effect from October 1, 1967, he became an employee of the Beas Construction Board and thus he had to report for duty to that Board and obtain the posting orders and his salary for the period of leave and thereafter. He was no more the responsibility of the Punjab Government for being posted in the State of Punjab. The position taken up by Respondent 3, on the other hand, is that since the Petitioner was not actually working on the Beas Project immediately before October 1, 1967 - -the date of the constitution of the Board - -he did not become an employee of that Board but retained the status of an employee of the Punjab Government to whom he was to report for duty and posting orders after the expiry of his leave. It is thus evident that the stand taken up by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 is similar and it has to be decided -whether the stand taken by Respondents 1 and 2 is correct or the other stand which has been taken by the Petitioner and Respondent 3.
(3.) IN order to decide this matter, it is necessary to refer to Section 80 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, which reads as under: 80(1) Notwithstanding any thing contained in this Act or in any other law, the construction (including the completion of any work already commenced) of the Beas Project shall, on and from the appointed day, be undertaken by the Central Government on behalf of the successor States and the State of Rajasthan: Provided that the Governments of the successor States and the State of Rajasthan shall at all times provide the necessary funds to the Central Government for the expenditure on the Project including the expenses of the Board referred to in Sub -section (2) and such amounts shall be apportioned among the successor States and the State of Rajasthan in such proportion as may be fixed by the Central Government after consultation with the Governments of the said States. 2. For the discharge of its functions under Sub -section (1) the Central Government may - - (a) by notification in the Official Gazette and in consultation with the Governments of the successor States and the State of Rajasthan, constitute a Board to be called the Beas Construction Board with such members as it may deem fit and assign to the Board such functions as it may consider necessary; and (b) issue such directions to the State Governments of Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan and the Administrator of the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh or any other authority, and the State Governments, Administrator or other authority shall comply with such directions. 3. The notification constituting a Board under Clause (a) of Sub -section 20 may empower the Board to appoint such staff as may be necessary for the efficient discharge of its functions: Provided that every person, who immediately before the constitution of the Board was engaged in the construction of any work relating to the Beas Project shall continue to be so employed by the Board in connection with the said works on the same terms and conditions of service as were applicable to him before such constitution until the Central Government by order directs otherwise: Provided further that the Board may at any time in consultation with the State Government or the Electricity Board concerned and with the previous approval of the Central Government return any such person for service under that Government or Board. 4. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as enabling the Central Government to reduce or enlarge the scope of the Beas Project as agreed to between the Governments of the State of Rajasthan and the existing State of Punjab except after consultation with the Governments of the State of Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan.;