JAI PAL SINGH SANGWAN Vs. D V BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) This appeal arises out of a writ petition (CWP No. 4200 of 1983 filed by Respondents 1 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioners") in the High court of Punjab and Haryana wherein they assailed the seniority of the appellant in the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) [for short "hcs (EB) "]. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High court. Letters Patent Appeal No. 712 of 1986 filed against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge was allowed by the division bench of the High court by the impugned judgment dated 21/6/1990.

(3.) The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: The appellant had initially joined the service of the former State of Punjab in July 1961 as Extension Officer (Industries). On 12/4/1963, he joined the Indian Army as an Emergency Commissioned Officer on a Class I post. He continued in the Army till February 1969. On 4/2/1969, he was appointed on the Class II post of Assistant Director in the Industries Department of the government of Haryana since no suitable Class I equivalent post was made available to him at that time. In respect of vacancies of the year 1975 a special recruitment was made for HCS (EB) and the appellant was selected and on that basis he was appointed to HCS (EB) Class I on 27/1/1978. Under Rule 4 of the Punjab government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") , as applicable in the State of Haryana, the benefit of military service is to be granted in the matter of increments, seniority and pension. The appellant claimed the benefit of his military service in the matter of seniority in HCS (EB). The said benefit was granted to him and, as a result, he was given deemed appointment against the vacancy of 1971 in HCS (EB). The petitioners had been appointed to HCS (EB) against the vacancies of 1971 and their seniority was adversely affected by the said extension of the benefit of military service to the appellant. Feeling aggrieved by the said alteration of seniority of the appellant, they filed the writ petition which has given rise to this appeal.