SURINDER PAUL SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition involves adjudication of the claim made by the petitioner that his total service be counted for the purpose of fixation of seniority and for grant of other service benefits.

(2.) For deciding whether the petitioner's claim is tenable or not, it is necessary to give a brief reference to the facts. Petitioner was appointed as Lineman in the services of the respondent-Board with effect from 11.10.1976. He has described this appointment to be a regular appointment on the ground that his candidature was sponsored by the employment exchange and he was appointed after selection. However, this statement has been contested by the respondent Nos. I to 3, who have asserted that the petitioner was not appointed on the basis of selection made after advertising the posts or after being sponsored by the employment exchange. These respondents have pleaded that the petitioner had applied for regular appointment as Lineman in response to the advertisement issued in the year 1978 and after interview by the Services Selection Committee constituted by the respondent-Board, he was appointed as Lineman with effect from 13.10.1978.

(3.) Contention of the petitioner is that his total service commencing from 11.10.1976 should be counted for the purpose of seniority, experience, pay fixation etc. and the respondent Nos. I to 3 have acted illegally and arbitrarily in denying him the benefit of service rendered between 11.10.1976 and 12.10.1978 for the aforementioned purposes. He has placed reliance on the decree passed by the Sub Judge, Ist Class, Ludhiana on 27.8.1990 in favour of respondent No. 4, Sukhdev Singh, who was appointed as Lineman on ad hoc basis on 30th August, 1976. He has also relied upon circular No. 36 of 1987 (Annexure-P.4) issued by the Board for counting of ad hoc/temporary service for the purpose of counting of experience for promotion and direct recruitment. Respondent Nos. I, 2 and 3 have, on the other hand, contended that on the basis of purely ad hoc appointment, which was not preceded by any selection, the petitioner cannot get the benefit of seniority and that he has been correctly assigned the seniority on the basis of length of service counted from 13.10.1978. Case of respondent No. 4 has been distinguished on the ground that his service was terminated on 16.2.1981 but he had to be reinstated in view of the award passed by the Labour Court on 8.6.1983 and, thereafter, suit filed by him was decreed and the Board had no option but to implement the decree passed by the learned Sub Judge. Respondent No. 4 has also contested the claim of the petitioner on similar grounds.