V.K. Bali, J. - (1.) Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited as also Balkar Singh and others have filed separate Letters Patent Appeals against the judgment recorded by the learned Single Judge dated May 17, 1991 vide which writ filed by the respondents herein was allowed, thus, setting aside the order passed by the appellant-Corporation dated July 9,1985 (Annexure P-5) determining the petitioners seniority and order dated July 9,1965 Annexure P-5 reverting petitioners 1 to 4 from the posts of Field Officers to the posts of Inspectors with all consequential benefits. -
(2.) Brief facts of the case reveal that the Board of Directors of appellant Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited sanctioned creation of 12 posts of Field Publicity Assistants on September 30,1976. The petitioners were recruited against the said posts on July 1, 1977. The essential qualifications for the post of Field Publicity Assistants (in short F.P.As.) was Bachelor's Degree in Articles. Commerce or Science and preference was to be given to those who had passed Sociology as one of the elective subjects. The appellant-Corporation had not framed any Regulations when the petitioners came to be so recruited against the posts aforesaid and, therefore, the service conditions of the employees were governed by Draft Service Bye-laws as PUNSUP Service Regulations, 1975. As per Regulation 11 of the Draft Regulations aforesaid, inter se seniority of the members of service was to be determined by the date of their continuous appointment in the service. The qualifications with regard to Inspectors was also Bachelor's degree. In the meeting held on September 29, 1978, the Board of Directors of the appellant-Corporation discontinued 12 posts of F.P.As. against which the petitioners had been appointed who were to be absorbed as Inspectors. Consequently, 12 posts of Inspectors were sanctioned with a view to absorb the petitioners. However, since the petitioners were to be adjusted against the posts of Inspectors, the question of deciding inter se seniority between the petitioners and those who had already worked on the post of Inspectors came to be focussed and in that direction the Managing Director of the Corporation sought advice of Director of Food and Supplies and Joint Secretary to Government, Punjab. The Managing Director was advised by the Department of Food and Supplies vide letter dated February 21, 1983 that the matter had been referred to the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and as per their advice the seniority of the F.P.As. who had since been adjusted as Inspectors was to be determined on the basis of continuous length of service in the equated ranks and inasmuch as the posts of F.P.As. and of Inspectors carried identical pay scales, qualifications, duties and responsibilities the seniority of the petitioners, respondents herein was advised to be fixed with reference to then-continuous length of service in the two equated posts. This advice was actually translated into reality by fixing the seniority of the petitioners on the appointment/adjustment but also from the fact that the period of service spent by the petitioners against the posts of F.P.As. was reckoned for fixation of pay as Inspectors and towards clearing the probation period as Inspectors. The aforesaid fact has been specifically pleaded in the petition and the corresponding para of the written statement filed by the Corporation has been admitted. Further, not only the qualifications of both the posts i.e. F.P.As. and the Inspectors are the same i.e. Bachelors' Degree but even the nature of duties and responsibilities were identical as pleaded by the petitioners and admitted by the Corporation. It was, thus, a case of merger of two cadres and, therefore, the service rendered by the petitioners on the posts of F.P.As. had necessarily to be reckoned for the purpose of determining inter se seniority between those who were already holding the posts of Inspectors and the petitioners who came to occupy such posts on merger. The contention of Dr. Balram Gupta that the petitioners were not in service from July 29, 1978 to April 17, 1979 is neither supported by averments spelled out to that effect from the written statement filed by the Corporation nor such point was ever raised before the learned Single Judge. Dr. Balram Gupta is, otherwise also unable to substantiate the facts asserted by him for the first time before us, from any document forming part of records of this case. The contention is, thus, repelled. The plea that the Regulation pertaining to determination of inter se seniority having changed before the appointment of the petitioners on the posts of Inspectors is also devoid of merit. As held, it was a case of merger and not to fresh basis of length of service. The course adopted by the appellant-Corporation was obviously not to the liking of the Inspectors who were serving the Corporation on the said posts prior to the adjustment of the petitioners and, therefore, after filing the representation one of such Inspectors i.e. Balkar Singh agitated the matter by way of Civil Writ Petition bearing number 3825 of 1984 in which it was ordered that the representation filed by him and others shall be decided after giving an opportunity of hearing. In consequence of the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the matter was re-determined, this time, to the detriment of the petitioners, inasmuch as the Managing Director withdrew the seniority list earlier circulated by accepting the representation of Balkar Singh and others by holding that the petitioners shall be given seniority from the date they joined on the posts of Inspectors. This was done in the 77th meeting held by the Board of Directors on July 5, 1985, later petitioners 1 to 4 who had, in the meantime, been promoted to the posts of Field Officers were reverted as Inspectors with immediate effect. The orders, referred to above, were successfully agitated by the petitioners before the learned single Judge as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment.
(3.) Whereas Mr. Somesh Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation seeks setting aside of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on the solitary ground that the petitioners were given fresh appointments and it was not a case of merger as has been held by the learned single Judge, Dr. Balram Gupta appearing for Balkar Singh and others in the other Letters Patent Appeal mainly contends that from the date the posts of F.P.As. were abolished i.e. on September 29, 1978 and the date when there was an order of re-employment, the petitioners were not holding any post. There was, thus, an interruption in their continuous period of service and that being so, the order appointing them on the posts of Inspectors has to be treated as fresh appointment for all intents and purposes. He further contends that Regulation 12 of Draft Regulations was approved and enforced with effect from April 1,1979 according to which the seniority inter se of the members of the service was to be determined by the length of their continuous service on a post in the service the criteria for determining seniority underwent a change prior to appointment of the petitioners on the posts of Inspectors and, therefore, while determining seniority between Balkar Singh and others and the petitioners, the continuous service on a post in the service had to be taken into consideration and not continuous length of service as such.;