- (1.) The petitioner has challenged office order, dated July 15, 1986 passed by the Executive Director, The Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development and Finance Corporation, Chandigarh, whereby he was reverted from the post of Enforcement Officer and posted in the Accounts Department, in this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Accounts Assistant on October 31, 1973 in the Punjab Schedule Castes Land Development and Finance Corporation, Chandigarh (for short, the Corporation). The Assistants when posted in the field are designated as Field Officers and otherwise, at the Head Office they are designated as Assistants. The Board of Directors in exercise of powers conferred under Regulation 4(d) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development and Finance Corporation General Regulations made amendments and thereby added the post of Internal Auditor in the list of posts from which promotion could be made to the post of Enforcement Officer. The conditions of service of the employees of the Corporation are governed by the Punjab Schedules Castes Land Development and Finance Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (for brevity, Regulations, 1971), wherein the inter se seniority is determined according to Regulation 25 of the Regulations, 1971. The same reads thus : "25. Seniority : The inter se seniority of persons appointed to posts carrying the same scale of pay shall be determined by the date of their substantive appointments to such posts :- Provided that if two or more persons are substantively appointed to such posts on the same date, there seniority shall be determined as under :- (i) a person recruited by promotion from the service of the Corporation shall be senior to a person recruited otherwise : Provided that in the case of promotion of two or more persons, their inter se seniority shall be determined according to their seniority in the posts from which they have been promoted. (ii) a person on deputation shall be senior to a person recruited by direct appointment : Provided that in the case of two or more persons on deputation, their inter-se seniority shall be determined according to their seniority in the present service. (iii) in the case of persons recruited by direct appointment, the older in age shall rank senior to the younger, and (iv) in any other case, the person in the higher scale of pay shall be considered to be senior to a person in the lower scale of pay and where the scales of pay are identical, the person drawing higher salary shall rank senior. Note : A person, who in view of his qualifications and previous experience is granted initial increments in the grade at the time of his appointment, may be granted seniority for a period upto one year for every two increments granted to him in the grade to which he is appointed by the Executive Director, subject, in the case of an Officer, to the prior approval of the Board.' The inter se seniority of the posts carrying the same pay scale would be determined on the basis of the date of substantive appointments, to the said posts. The posts of Assistant, Accounts Assistant, Field Officer, Internal Auditor and Cashier are in the same scale of pay viz. Rs. 225-500 (now revised to Rs. 570-1080/-) Respondent No. 2 was posted as Field Officer in 1978 and he continued as such till the year, 1980. He was senior to the petitioner as Assistant/Field Officer, but was not considered for promotion as Enforcement Officer when the petitioner was promoted. The tentative seniority list was circulated by the Corporation vide letter, dated May 26, 1977 and respondent No. 2 made representation, dated June 14, 1977 for not assigning him correct position in the seniority list. His representation was accepted and he was assigned seniority at Sr. No. 18-A in the joint seniority list of Assistants/Accounts Assistants, Field Officers/Internal Auditors and Cashiers. After he was assigned correct position in the seniority list, his claim for promotion against the post of Enforcement Officer was considered and he was promoted as Enforcement Officer and adjusted against at point No. 16 reserved for Scheduled Castes in the roster of promotion of the Enforcement Officer. Since the petitioner had been appointed as Enforcement Officer against Sr. No. 16 and he being the junior was reverted and posted in the Accounts Section.
(3.) This petition came up for hearing before M.M. Punchhi, J. (as his Lordship then was) on September 24, 1987. It was represented before him that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before disturbing his seniority and as a consequent thereto, reverted him to the post of Assistant. The learned Single Judge found that the matter was of considerable nature and observing thus :- "I have heard the learned counsel on some detail and have come to the view that the matter as such deserves to be heard by a larger Bench. I need not quote the judicial precedents cited by either side, for they are many but the scattered judicial though on the subject needs to be arranged and tied up as there are some ends which give rise to doubt and uncertainty. One of the views is that in affecting seniority, the affected employee must be given an opportunity of being heard and that he has a locus standi to voice his grievance in courts of law. This view is in abstract de hors of what he had to say against the action taken on opportunity granted. There are other cases in which an employee complaining of breach of the rule of audi alteram partem had to prima facie establish that he had a case on the basis of the statute, rule or practice to have the status quo ante restored for which he clamored of an opportunity of being heard. In those cases the petitions were allowed by this Court and the matter sent back for re-decision to the concerned authority. Yet there are other cases in which it has been taken that the government can correct its own mistake of re-seniority of its employees and need not afford an opportunity of being heard to the affected employee whose position is changed to his discomfiture. Further if seniority can be disturbed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the concerned person, then shall the necessary consequences be allowed to follow without observance of the rule of audi alteram partem is the sequel question. The instant case is of the consequential reversion of the petitioner. Sitting in Single Bench, I cannot entwine all these thoughts lest it treat upon some of the views of the larger Benches. Therefore, let the papers of this case be placed before my Lord and Chief Justice for pleasure of his constituting a larger Bench of the size here deems proper. This being special order case for enlistment should have its priority maintained." desired that the case should be heard by a larger Bench. It is how this petition has been listed before us for disposal.;