K.KANNAN J. - (1.) THE case had been ordered to be disposed of along with C.W.P. No.6374 of 1995. The registry has placed on record judgment in C.W.P. No.6374 of 1995. It is not in any way connected with the decision in C.W.P. No.6374 of 1995 and therefore, I have proceeded to take up the case and disposed it of with reference to judgment in C.W.P. No.6374 of 1995.
(2.) THE petitioner's contention is that he had passed B.Sc Engineering (Civil) in the year 1962 and he had joined the service as Lecturer in Civil Engineering (Technical Education) after having been selected through Punjab Public Service Commission on 27.12.1962. The Government had issued instructions on 08.07.1963, inter alia, granting benefits of military service to persons who were rendered the military service. The petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the instructions, he having joined the military service as a commissioned Officer on 17.02.1964. He was released from Army on 08.05.1972 and joined as Sub Divisional Engineer (Public Health) on 09.05.1972. The petitioner's grievance was that one F.Lal Kansal had been promoted as Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 24.03.1971 and still further promoted as Chief Engineer w.e.f. 24.03.1974. The petitioner seeks for the relief that he was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 17.09.1971 when his junior was promoted as Superintending Engineer and a further promotion as Chief Engineer w.e.f. 17.09.1974 when S.L. Verma had been promoted by treating the petitioner as permanent in P.S.E. Class II w.e.f. 27.12.1962 and applying the instructions dated 08.07.1963 giving him the benefit of the Government instructions relating to counting of military service and by giving the benefit of Rule 8 of the 1965 Rules namely Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965. The writ petition has been filed after retirement of the petitioner from service on 31.12.1995 contending that he had been making representations for consideration to the promotion post but he had not been favoured with appropriate reliefs and for claiming benefits after his retirement. The petitioner would justify the delayed filing of writ petition by representing that he had himself filed COCP No.27 of 1996 for disobedience of the order already passed by this Court wherein he had the benefit of Court directions which were not complied with. The contempt application had been dismissed on 05.01.1996 with liberty given to him to challenge it my means of writ petition. I have gone through the relevant instructions dated 08.07.1963 relating to the manner of treatment of a temporary service when the employee was subsequently absorbed from Military Service. The instructions dated 08.07.1963 in paragraph (n) states that "temporary State Government employees, who were released from military service and absorbed to the post from which they proceeded on military service would be treated in the same manner as permanent State Government employees in respect of pay, seniority and pension on their return irrespective of whether or not the posts on which they were working at the time of their joining the military service continued to remain in existence remaining the existing service. Only temporary State Government employees who do not return to the same post or to its equivalent post or similar grade would be treated as new entrants." These instructions were reported to have been given statutory recognition through the Rules of 1965. Rule 8 contained a similar provision and I take it established that a temporary service would be reckoned as permanent if the employee had joined the military service and rejoined service at the same post. It appears that the petitioner's seniority had been fixed in P.S.E. Class II and Class I below A.S. Dhami and above Prem Kumar Verma. A.S. Dhami had been appointed as P.S.E. Class II w.e.f. 03.02.1967 on probation and the petitioner was claiming seniority above all the persons who were not made permanent in P.S.E. Class II as on 17.12.1962. The petitioner would set out all the officers who had been appointed to the post of P.S.E. Class II w.e.f. 03.02.1967. The seniority list had been published on 04.03.1968. The petitioner is literally asking to rewrite the issue of seniority and for rewriting the list which was published in the year 1968 at a time when the petitioner was doing military service. The petitioner's own contention was that he had been making several representations in the year 1983 and still later a representation made in the year 1994. It is not possible to reissue a seniority or refix pay scale at such length of time. I do not think the petitioner will have the benefit of reconsideration after he was retired from service. The petitioner was guilty of laches and it must be remembered that the redressal of grievance cannot at all times be done only through making representation and if his own case was not properly considered at the appropriate time, the remedy lies in approaching the Court and seeking for appropriate redress and not persisting with representations. The question of treating him as a person promoted from the date when his junior was promoted cannot be considered favourably.
(3.) THE writ petition is dismissed.;