I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) This order disposes of two Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 583 of 1979 and 185 of 1980 as admittedly these give rise to identical questions of law in the light of similarly of facts. The learned counsel for the petitioners concedes that for purposes of this judgment only the facts stated in C.W.P. No. 583 need the adverted to.
(2.) The petitioner in this case was initially appointed as a Line Superintendent on Oct. 3, 1963 but later on his request, his cadre was changed to that of Sub Station Operator Grade II, vide order Annexure P 2. The grouse of the petitioner is that though as per the Integrated Seniority List of Line Superintendents and Sub Station Operators (Annexure P. 4) he is senior to number of persons, yet persons, junior to him have been promoted as Junior Engineers without considering his claim inspite of the fact that he was fully eligible for such a promotion. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner had wrongly been assigned seniority No 619 in Annexure P.4 and as a matter of fact his seniority was required to be determined in the light of the change of his cadre. It is also pointed out on their behalf that an order to this effect was passed on March 27, 1979, i e., subsequent to the filing of this petition vide Annexure-R.l. It is also pointed out on behalf of these authorities that order Annexure R.l is appealable in the light of Regulation 18(4) of Punjab State Electricity Board (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1971. Concededly the petitioner has not availed of this appellate remedy. In view of this he is directed to file an appeal under the above noted regulation within a fortnight from today. In case any such appeal is filed, the same would not be dismissed on the ground of limitation but would be decided on merits by passing a speaking order after hearing him.
(3.) In the other case, i.e , C.W.P. No. 185, though it is mentioned in Annexure P.6 as well as Annexure F to the written statement that such an appeal filed by the petitioner under Regulation 18 (4) of the Regulations referred to above had been dismissed in the light of "the position earlier thrashed out in the representation of Sh. Manjit Singh, S.S.C." yet the learned counsel appearing for the Board is not in a position to produce before me the order of the Board rejecting the appeal on merits by passing a speaking order, nor he is in a position to produce before me the record showing earlier "thrashing out" of the case of the petitioner as referred to in these Annexures. Thus order Annexure P 6 and Annexure F to the written statement which are in the form of a communication about the rejection of the appeal are set aside In the light of all this T have no hesitation in directing the Board to reconsider and decide the appeal (Annexure P.5) of this petitioner on merits by passing a speaking order after hearing him. Both the appeals, as mentioned above, would be disposed of by the Board within a period of four months from today.;