ROSHAN LAL SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is mainly based on a complaint about the alleged failure of the respondents to effectively implement the directive of the Central Government dated April 18, 1965 under Section 117 of the States Reorganisation Act, 37 of 1956 (hereinafter called the Act), relating to pay and other matters concerning officers included in the final joint seniority list of the group of services consisting of Superintendents Deputy Superintendents, Assistants-in-charge and Assistants of the Punjab Civil Secretariat consequent on the merger of the erstwhile Popsu State with that of the State of Punjab.

(2.) AT the time of the merger of the two States of October 31, 1956 the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant in the Civil Secretariat of the Patiala and East punjab States Union (commonly known as PEPSU) in a substantive permanent capacity in the time-scale of pay of Rs. 150--10--300. He was consequently integrated with effect from November 1, 1958, in the joint integrated cadre of assistants in the larger State of Punjab, in due couse, he was promoted as Deputy superintendent since June 23, 1962, and has been serving as such since then. In the provisional joint seniority list of Superintendents, Deputy Superintendents and assistants of the enlarged Pun-Jab Civil Secretariat prepared in July 1958, which was circulated in September 1958, the inter se seniority of the petitioner on the one hand and of Sushil Rattan Chopra (respondent No. 31 and Kuldip Chand thakar (respondent No. 4) on the other hand was shown as follows:-- (i) Respondent No. 3 at serial No. 203; (ii) Petitioner at serial No. 234; and (iii) Respondent No. 4 at serial No. 282. (In paragraph 4 of the writ petition, it had been claimed that the petitioner had been placed in the provisional list at serial No. 233 but it has been averred in the corresponding paragraph of the State's written statement that his correct position in the provisional joint seniority list was at No. 234. Though this slight discrepancy does not make any material difference, I have taken the position of the petitioner as admitted by the respondents to be the correct one for the purposes of deciding this case.)

(3.) IN 1960 the Punjab Government framed an Assistant Section Officers scheme. By an order dated March 14, 1961 (Annexure B), it was decided by the Punjab government to fix inter se seniority of the officials who were at that time working as Assistant Section Officers on the basis of the position obtained by them in the competitive examination held for their recruitment. In that merit list respondent no. 3 was placed at No. 1 and respondent No. 4 at No. 2. It has, however, to be borne in mind that the said order (Annexure B) made it explicitly clear that the merit list contained therein was made only for the purpose of fixing inter se seniority of the Assistant Section Officers and the same neither purported to nor was intended to disturb the inter se seniority of the erstwhile Assistants including assistant Section Officers in the joint seniority list. Paragraph 2 of the order made this clear beyond any doubt in the following words;-