LAWS(P&H)-1996-11-120

BACHAN LAL KAPOOR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On November 05, 1996
BACHAN LAL KAPOOR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2128 and 3230 of 1982 are in the nature of cross petitions. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to the facts as averred in CWP No. 2128 of 1982. These may be briefly noticed.

(2.) On November 25, 1960, the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Circle (North) offered a temporary post of Sectional Officer in the scale of Rs. 100-300 plus allowances to the petitioner. It was inter alia stipulated that he ''will be on training for first three months during which period'' he ''will be paid only Rs. 45/- PM plus usual allowances admissible under the rules.'' The petitioner joined the training. On successful completion of the training in February, 1961, he was posted as Sectional Officer. Initially his seniority was fixed on the hypothesis that he had been appointed a Sectional Officer on November 25, 1960. On November 29, 1979, the Chief Engineer issued an order, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-5 with the writ petition by which it was declared that the petitioner's ''apprenticeship period is not countable towards .......... seniority ......'' Resultantly, he was given seniority on the basis that he had joined service as Sectional Officer on February 26, 1996. As a result, the petitioner was even reverted from the post of Sub Divisional Engineer to that of a Sectional Officer.

(3.) Mr. Sharma submits that the order dated November 29, 1979 is vitiated as it was passed without the grant of any opportunity to the petitioner. He submits that as a result the Order dated September 26, 1980 by which the petitioner's seniority was refixed as also the order dated April 23, 1982, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-8 with the writ petition, by which he was reverted from the post of Sub Divisional Engineer to that of Sectional Officer, are vitiated. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents