ARUN PALLI, J. - (1.) BRIEF narration of facts, to an extent they are material and necessary, would be in order.
(2.) RESPONDENT -Bhupinder Kumar joined Rail Coach Factory (RCF), Kapurthala (petitioner before us), as a casual Khalasi on 21.05.1986. On qualifying a trade test, he was promoted as Skilled Typist. During the course of service at RCF Kapurthala, he applied for the post of Typist against an advertisement issued by Railway Recruitment Board (RRB), Jammu. Having been selected, his name was approved and included in the panel for Diesel Component Work (DCW), Patiala. His case has been that he informed his Controlling Officer at RCF Kapurthala for relieving him as and when he receives the letter of appointment from DCW, Patiala. However, Chief Engineer (T.S.), RCF, Kapurthala, vide letter dated 19.01.1988, addressed to Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, RCF, Kapurthala requested for allowing the respondent to continue at RCF Kapurthala itself on loan basis for a period of two years. Consequently, vide letter dated 28.01.1988, office of OSD (RCF) requested DCW, Patiala that though the respondent was recommended for appointment to their unit, but he be temporarily given to RCF Kapurthala for a period of two years, as his services were essentially required for the said organisation. Vide letter dated 26.02.1988, DCW Patiala, informed RCF Kapurthala that the panel in which the name of the respondent exists, consisted of 40 persons out of which only 7 had been appointed by that time and since the name of the respondent was at Serial No.30, he could be appointed only on the maturity of his turn. Eventually, DCW Patiala vide letter dated 17.08.1988 forwarded the matter in relation to the appointment of respondent to RCF Kapurthala. Correspondence between the two organisations further reveal that vide letter dated 28.09.1988, RCF Kapurthala, had requested DCW Patiala, for retention of the lien of the petitioner at Patiala. However, in response DCW Patiala, vide letter dated 21.12.1988, informed that there was no question of retention of the lien of the petitioner at DCW Patiala as the same was to be retained at RCF Kapurthala only. It is stated, though not required, yet RCF Kapurthala sent a letter to DCW Patiala for police verification of the respondent, vide letter dated 17.08.1988. Further, post receipt of the letter dated 17.08.1988, the matter was prolonged for one reason or the other and it was only on 08.03.1989 that the RCF Kapurthala offered a fresh appointment to the respondent and he joined on the same day.
(3.) GRIEVANCE of the petitioner is, a candidate lower than the respondent in the panel was appointed w.e.f. 20.06.1988 and since the respondent was transferred from DCW Patiala to RCF Kapurthala, purely on administrative ground, he was entitled to seniority w.e.f. the date a person lower in merit in the panel was appointed i.e., 20.06.1988. Initially, the representation made by the respondent to the authorities in this regard was rejected vide order dated 11.12.1989. But he again represented and this time the petitioner acceded to his prayer, vide order dated 20.01.1992. Accordingly, necessary correction was carried out in the seniority list and as a result the respondent also earned his promotions, first, as Senior Clerk and then as Head Clerk. The next promotion of the respondent from the post of Head Clerk was to the post of Superintendent Grade II i.e., a selection post. The respondent appeared in the written test and viva voce and qualified the same, culminating into his appointment on 11.01.1997.;