Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. - (1.) SHRI Rajinder Kumar Bajaj/respondent No. 2 was appointed as a Postal Assistant on 02.08.1965 and was confirmed on 01.03.1969. He was placed in the next higher grade firstly on introduction of One Time Bound Promotion Scheme (OTBP) on 30.11.1983 and then again under the 'Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) Scheme' on completion of 26 years of service on 01.10.1991. The said respondent No. 2 sought transfer from Faridkot Division where he was recruited to Bhatinda Division which request was acceded to vide an order dated 17.06.1994 as per the terms and conditions specified therein. The contents of the order read as under: - Approval of Director Postal Services Punjab Region Chandigarh is hereby conveyed for the inter Division transfer of Shri R.K. Bajaj, ECR Official of Faridkot Division from Faridkot Division to Bathinda Division subject to the following terms and conditions: - 1. He will not claim any TA & TP.
(2.) HE will not confer any right to his seniority on Divisional level. He will be adjusted in Bathinda Division to work as BCR official in any capacity. Respondent No. 2 joined Bhatinda Division on 18.06.1994 and was assigned the seniority at the bottom at Sr. No. 89 in view of the terms and conditions set out in the order dated 17.06.1994. Respondent No. 2, however, submitted a representation on 22.08.2002 seeking benefits of his earlier service rendered in Faridkot Division towards his seniority which purported to be a reminder to an earlier representation dated 09.09.1999, though copy of the earlier representation does not appears to be on record. This representation was rejected on 22.10.2003. In the meantime, respondents No. 3 to 6 who have been arrayed as proforma respondents before us, earned their promotions. Respondent No. 2 made further representations but to no avail as they were also rejected on 31.08.2004. 2. The aforesaid grievance gave rise to respondent No. 2 to file an Original Application No. 700/PB/2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, which was disposed of on 25.11.2005. The Tribunal took note of two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. C.N. Poonappan : 1996 (1) S.C.C. (L&S) 824 and Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri Vs. V.M. Joseph : 1998 S.C.C. (L&S) 1362. In terms of these pronouncements where an employee is transferred on compassionate grounds from one unit to another, though he looses his seniority and is placed at the bottom of the seniority list at the transferred place, the service rendered at the place from where he has been transferred has to be counted as experience for the purpose of eligibility for promotion at the transferred place. The Tribunal opined that the eligibility for promotion cannot be confused with seniority as they are two distinct factors and issued the following directions: - In line with the discussion above, present O.A. is disposed of and the respondents are directed to consider the case/eligibility of the applicant first for promotion to LSG (norm based) taking into account his entire service, including that rendered in Faridkot Division, and then, for HSG -II and HSG -I. The respondents will pass a detailed speaking order within 3 months of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say that in case, applicant gets promoted to these posts, he will be entitled to consequential benefits, which may be paid to him within the period stipulated above. 3. The Department assuming it to be the requirement to only pass a speaking order, rejected the request of respondent No. 2 vide order dated 22.02.2006. The basis of passing of the order was that the seniority of respondent No. 2 would continue to be at the bottom. This was perceived by respondent No. 2 to be a violation of the directions passed by the Tribunal on 25.11.2005, thus he filed the contempt proceedings in which notices were issued by the Tribunal. It is at that stage that the present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to assail the order of the Tribunal dated 25.11.2005 as also the subsequent orders passed on the contempt proceedings.
(3.) IN the present petition notice of motion was issued and the proceedings before the Tribunal under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 were stayed vide order dated 08.02.2007. Subsequently, the petition was admitted and stay was directed to be continued on 01.10.2007.;