- (1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Section Officer in the Punjab Public Works (B&R) Department on 28.08.1954. He was promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer on 15.03.1972. He was again promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer in April, 1990 and retired from service on 31.10.1990.
(3.) The dispute in the present writ petition relate to they denial of Selection Grade to the petitioner under the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission which became effective from 01.01.1978. Under the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission, 20% posts of the cadre of the Sub Divisional Engineers were required to be placed in the Selection Grade. The State Government issued instructions vide circular dated 16.05.1987 (Annexure P-1), for grant of Selection Grade. As per the aforesaid circular, Selection Grade can only be admissible to any officer if he has completed 15 years of service as on 01.01.1978 which should be either in the basic scale where appointment to the basic scale is from the point of fresh entry into service or as the sum total of the employees service in the basic scale and in the one scale next below. It is further clarified in this circular that where a junior employee has become eligible for the placement in the Selection Grade, earlier than a senior employee, the junior will be granted the benefit of Selection Grade. However, it will not effect the seniority of the senior employee and when the senior completes the eligibility for being placement in the selection grade, he will also be granted the Selection Grade. It is not in dispute that the recruitment to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer/Officer was by direct recruitment. The petitioner was a promotee officer. The seniority list of the Sub Divisional Engineers (Civil) was notified on 23.06.2000 (Annexure P-2) and the petitioner figures at serial No. 222 of the aforesaid seniority list. On being denied the Selection Grade, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 12235 of 2000 which came to be disposed of vide order dated 12.09.2000 and a direction was issued to the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking order within a period of two months. Since this order was not complied with, the petitioner filed COCP No. 1438 of 2000. During the pendency of this contempt petition, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 09.02.2001 (Annexure P-4) whereby the claim of the petitioner for placement in the Selection Grade has been rejected.;