BALBIR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the main facts, there is not much dispute in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was an employee in one of the eight Covenanting States, which merged into the Union of States known as PEPSU. This merger took place with effect from the 1st of September, 1948. By a notification of the Home Department, which is reproduced below :

(2.) THE effect of this integration was that the previous service of the petitioner in the Covenanting State was ignored. The order of the Rajpramukh is dated the 21st of January, 1955. The respondent, Hari Singh, was recruited for the first time on the 25th of October, 1948 in the State of Punjab on the 1st of November, 1956 PEPSU and Punjab State were merged and the first provisional Integration list was prepared which is Annexure P. 2. This list was issued on the 15th of April, 1957; and the petitioner is shown as senior to Hari Singh, Thereafter, another provisional Joint Seniority List was issued in the year 1958, which is Annexure P. 3. In that list, the petitioner is shown as junior to Hari Singh. The date of service of the petitioner was changed from the 1st of September, 1948 to 22nd of December, 1948; otherwise there is no reason to show the petitioner junior to Hari Singh, respondent. The petitioner's appeals against this displacement of his seniority met with no success and ultimately he made a large number of representations which have gone unheeded. All these representations are mentioned in Annexure P 5. In the Final Gradation List, Annexure P 4, the position, as was in Annexure P. 3, has been maintained. It is in this situation that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) MR . Mehta, who appears for the respondents 2, 3 and 4 has raised the contention that the petition is belated. Even if it is so, in view of the fact, that there is merit in the petition, I cannot dismiss it on ground of laches in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Rajinder Parshad and another v. The Punjab State, A.I.R. 1963 P&H. 185. No other contention has been urged which requires determination.