Sukhdev Singh Kang, J. - (1.) Roshan Lal and two others have filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing impugned order dated 22nd Jan., 1979 (Annexure P-4), passed by respondent No. 1 the State.
(2.) The skeletal facts, as are necessary to determine the controversy between the parties, may be set down. That prior to the merger of the States of Punjab and Pepsu on 1st Nov., 1956, the petitioners were working as Clerks in the Co-operative Department of Punjab, whereas Shri Madan Lal Aneja (hereinafter referred to as 'Aneja' for brevity's sake) served in the office of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhatinda, in Pepsu as a Senior Clerk. After merger of the two States the Integration Department prepared and issued an integrated gradation list on 9th March, 1964, of Clerks serving in the Co-operative Department of the new State of Punjab. It reflected their rankings as on 1st Nov., 1956. It was circulated to all concerned, inviting objections. In this list, Aneja was shown junior to all the petitioners. He did not prefer any objection to this list. After disposing the objections received, the list was finalised. It was approved by the Central Government and then published in the form of a notification in the Punjab Government Gazette dated 11th March, 196b (hereinafter it shall be referred to as 'the integration list'). The Central Government issued a Directive to the Punjab Government, which reads as under:- "In exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 117 of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956 (Act 37 of 1956), the Central Government hereby directs the Government of Punjab to determine the seniority, pay and other matters concerning the officers included in the final gradation lists in accordance with the principles set out below : 1. Promotions made before 27th Feb., 1961, on the basis of the provisional gradation lists shall not be disturbed : Provided that the claims of officers for future promotion on the basis of seniority determined in accordance with the principles set out hereafter shall not be prejudiced. 2. Promotions made after 27th Feb., 1961, on the basis of the provisional gradation list shall be reviewed to the extent necessary to give effect to the claims of officers who are senior in the final gradation lists to the officers who have been promoted. 3. The seniority of an officer who would have been promoted if the final gradation lists had been available on 1st Nov., 1956, should be counted from the date on which an officer junior to him had started continuous officiation in the higher post because of his promotion under the provisional gradation lists. 4. The pay of an officer whose promotion and seniority is determined in accordance with clauses (2) and (3) shall be fixed at a stage which he would have attained in the time scale of higher post had he been promoted to the post on the date, set out in clause (3). Provided that he shall not be entitled to the arrears of pay for the period prior to the date of promotion. Action as aforesaid may be taken without prejudice to the principle of promotion on merit wherever applicable. (It shall be referred to as the Directive)." Thereafter a seniority list of Assistants/Head-Clerks depicting the position in the promoted rank of persons, shown in the integrated list and denoting their rankings as on 1st March, 1966, was published on 20th May, 1966. It was challenged by some of the colleagues of petitioners through Civil Writ Petition No (821 of 1966. Aneja was arrayed as respondent thereto. It was prayed therein that the State Government be directed to implement the Directive It was disposed of on an undertaking given by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Thereafter, a fresh joint seniority-list of Assistants/Head Clerks was circulated and objections were invited thereto. It depicted the rankings of the officials as on 1st March, 1966. It was based on the integration list. Aneja was shown junior to the petitioner. He did raise objections to this list also. After disposing of the objections it was finalised and published on 28th March, 1970, (hereinafter it shall be mentioned as 'the seniority list').
(3.) This lime also, some Assistants/Head Clerks filed two Civil Writ Petitions (Nos. 3321 and 2443-A of 19/0), in which a prayer was made that a direction be issued that the State Government should implement paragraph 4 of the Directive. Paragraph 3 in the memorandum accompanying the seniority list, was also sought to be quashed This paragraph is in the following terms:- "3. Shri Madan Lal (Aneja) is already working in a post higher than that of Assistant with higher scale of pay. It is ordered that his lower seniority, in the revised list would not effect his present appointment in the present scale. xxx xxx xxx" Aneja and three others filed four separate writ petitions, challenging the integration list and the Seniority list. Aneja's writ petition was Civil Writ Petition No. 1103 of 1970. The petitioners were impleaded as respondents in one or the other of these four writ petitions. All the above-mentioned six writ petitions were heard together by a Division Bench of this Court and disposed of by a common judgment On 14th Dec., 1970, four writ petitions filed by Aneja and his companions were allowed. The two seniority lists were quashed. However, the other two writ petitions, seeking the enforcement of the Directive and quashing paragraph 3 were dismissed. Two appeals were filed in the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court. These appeals were allowed and the judgment of this Court was set aside. They are dated 3rd Dec., 1971 and are annexed as Annexures P-2 and P-3 respectively. It was held inter alia that the two seniority lists (integration list and the seniority list) were valid and legal All future promotions were to be made on the basis of these lists. The Directive was binding on the State Government. The petitioners and Aneja were given opportunities to make representations to get benefits of paragraph 4 of the Directive.;