Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) Through the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing the orders dated 27.5.2014 and 2.9.2015, Annexures P.1 and P.2 respectively passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (CAT) whereby his claim for retention of lien with the respondent department was rejected.
(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. After doing M.A.in Psychology and M.Phil, the petitioner was selected for the post of Lecturer in Psychology by the Haryana Public Service Commission. He joined the said post on 2.4.1990 in the department of Education. The petitioner while serving in Government College, Kalka applied through proper channel for the post of Lecturer in Psychology in the department of education Chandigarh in pursuance to an advertisement for the post by Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and got selected. Prior to joining the post, the petitioner requested for pay and grade protection. The respondents informed the petitioner that he would be granted minimum of scale plus increments, if due and further pay protection will be considered after joining, if rules permitted. The petitioner was drawing Rs.11,300/- per month in the scale of 10000-375-15200 before joining the service with the respondents. Consequent to the assurance given by the respondent administration, the petitioner joined the post of Lecturer in Psychology with the respondent Administration on 31.7.2001. The respondents asked the petitioner for supply of service book/LPC etc. vide letter dated 26.12.2002. After receiving the said documents, the respondents fixed the pay as Rs.11300/- in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 vide order dated 19.8.2004. According to the petitioner, the pay was wrongly fixed as the past service was not counted towards the grant of scale as per UGC guidelines. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal which was decided in his favour. The respondents filed CWP No.2360 of 2013 in this court against the said decision which is pending adjudication. However, senior/selection grade had been granted to the petitioner subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The petitioner completed the probation period and was granted two increments on account of having acquired Ph.D degree w.e.f 7.6.2008 vide order dated 14.5.2009. In pursuance to an advertisement for the post of Assistant Professor in Psychology by Panjab University, Chandigarh, the petitioner applied for the post through proper channel vide application dated 25.1.2012 which was forwarded by respondent No.3 assuring that in case of his selection to the post applied for, his lien will be retained as per rules. The petitioner was selected and appointment letter dated 26.2.2013 was issued to him. The offer of appointment to join within 30 days from the issue of appointment letter was subject to the outcome of CWP No.17501 of 2011. The probation period was of one year. The petitioner submitted an application dated 27.2.2013, Annexure A.8 to respondent No.3 for relieving him and for retention of his lien on the present post. Respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 26.3.2013, Annexure A.1 intimating the petitioner to tender the resignation before joining the new post and no lien would be retained. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal. However, on the request made by the petitioner dated 19.3.2013, the joining time was extended upto 15.5.2013 vide letter dated 5.4.2013, Annexure A.10 and vide interim order dated 8.5.2013 passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner was allowed to join the new post without tendering his resignation. Upon notice, reply was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in which stand taken by the respondents for denial of lien on the post and asking for resignation was that as per advice of the Additional Secretary Personnel, Chandigarh Administration, since Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur, Chattisgarh was not within the ambit of Rule 3.12 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume I Part 1 being neither a department nor under the control of the Chandigarh Administration. According to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take into consideration two orders dated 17.12.2008 and 5.10.2011 passed by the respondents on identical issue of lien. The Tribunal dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 27.5.2014, Annexure P.1. The review petition filed by the petitioner also met with the same fate vide order dated 2.9.2015,Annexure P.2. The petitioner also cited identical cases i.e. Annexures RA3, RA5, RA6, RA8, RA10 and RA 11 in support of his claim. Hence the instant writ petition by the petitioner.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.;