I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) (Oral) - The petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Consolidation Officer in the service of the erstwhile State of Punjab and was reverted to the post of an Inspector on Dec. 17, 1963, with effect from Dec. 12, 1963, impugned that order through a civil suit. This suit of his was finally decreed by the Court on March 23, 1967 and order of his reversion was declared to be illegal and void. During the pendency of this suit, he was allocated to the State of Haryana with effect from Nov. 1, 1966 as a result of the re-organisation of the erstwhile State of Punjab. At the time of this allocation, he was stated to be an Inspector in the Consolidation Department. With the decreeing of his suit on March 23, 1967, the natural consequence of which essentially was that he was to be considered to have continued as Assistant Consolidation Officer, the State of Haryana so appointed him vide order dated Feb. 25, 1969. According to the respondent authorities, he however, absented himself from duty with effect from Oct. 7, 1967 to Dec. 7, 1972, meaning thereby that he worked neither as an Inspector nor as an Assistant Consolidation Officer during this period. However, no order adverse to him either terminating his services or punishing him in any other manner, was passed during this period. He later joined his duty as Assistant Consolidation Officer on Dec. 8, 1972 and continued as such up to May 1, 1979, when his services were terminated as a result of an equiry which was pending against him.
(2.) The claim of the petitioner while impugning the promotion of the private respondents as Consolidation Officers is that his seniority has wrongly been determined by the respondent authorities on account of the fact that he is not being treated in service as Assistant Consolidation Officer prior to Dec. 8, 1972 when he actually joined the post as such in pursuance of the order dated Feb. 25, 1969 which in turn had been passed as a result of the decree granted in his favour by the civil Court. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I find that the respondent authorities are not justified in not treating the petitioner in service upto the date of termination of his services, i. e., May 1, 1979. As already pointed out, it is the conceded position that prior to this date no order of termination of his services had been passed by the respondent authorities at any stage. As such neither his appointment as Assistant Consolidation Officer on Feb. 25, 1969 nor his joining the said post on Dec. 8, 1972, can be treated by the respondent authorities as his fresh appointment as they seek to do. His services having not been discontinued at any stage, he cannot possibly be treated out of service upto the date of termination of his services, i e.. May 1, 1979. His not performing the duties as a public servant or his absence from duty cannot by itself amount to the termination of his services. In the light of this I find that the petitioner is entitled to the relief to the limited extent that the respondent authorities have to count his period of service upto May 1, 1979 for purposes of fixation of his seniority and to grant him the relief available on that account.
(3.) So far as his prayer with regard to the quashing of the promotion orders of the private respondents is concerned, the same cannot be granted to him at this stage since he has ceased to be in service with effect from May 1, 1979.;