(1.) THE case had been ordered to be disposed of along with C.W.P. No.6374 of 1995. The registry has placed on record judgment in C.W.P. No.6374 of 1995. It is not in any way connected with the decision in C.W.P. No.6374 of 1995 and therefore, I have proceeded to take up the case and disposed it of with reference to judgment in C.W.P. No.6374 of 1995.
(2.) THE petitioner's contention is that he had passed B.Sc Engineering (Civil) in the year 1962 and he had joined the service as Lecturer in Civil Engineering (Technical Education) after having been selected through Punjab Public Service Commission on 27.12.1962. The Government had issued instructions on 08.07.1963, inter alia, granting benefits of military service to persons who were rendered the military service. The petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the instructions, he having joined the military service as a commissioned Officer on 17.02.1964. He was released from Army on 08.05.1972 and joined as Sub Divisional Engineer (Public Health) on 09.05.1972. The petitioner's grievance was that one F.Lal Kansal had been promoted as Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 24.03.1971 and still further promoted as Chief Engineer w.e.f. 24.03.1974. The petitioner seeks for the relief that he was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 17.09.1971 when his junior was promoted as Superintending Engineer and a further promotion as Chief Engineer w.e.f. 17.09.1974 when S.L. Verma had been promoted by treating the petitioner as permanent in P.S.E. Class II w.e.f. 27.12.1962 and applying the instructions dated 08.07.1963 giving him the benefit of the Government instructions relating to counting of military service and by giving the benefit of Rule 8 of the 1965 Rules namely Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965. The writ petition has been filed after retirement of the petitioner from service on 31.12.1995 contending that he had been making representations for consideration to the promotion post but he had not been favoured with appropriate reliefs and for claiming benefits after his retirement. The petitioner would justify the delayed filing of writ petition by representing that he had himself filed COCP No.27 of 1996 for disobedience of the order already passed by this Court wherein he had the benefit of Court directions which were not complied with. The contempt application had been dismissed on 05.01.1996 with liberty given to him to challenge it my means of writ petition.
(3.) THE writ petition is dismissed.