SUNDER LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of two connected writ petitions Nos. 1164 and 1481 of 1964. Counsel for the parties are agreed that the decision in the former petition will govern the other as well. I will, therefore, refer to the facts in Civil Writ 1164 of 1964.

(2.) HARDIAL Malik, Sunder Lal and Kahan Chand, all employees of Irrigation Branch in the Public Works Department, Punjab Government, filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against the State of Punjab and the Chief engineer, Irrigation Branch (South) Punjab, Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Subsequently, about 200 persons, whose seniority would be affected if the writ petition was allowed, were also impleaded as respondents. The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Clerks in the said department on 25th September, 1946, 17th February 1947 and 9th June, 1947, respectively. They had been working as civilian clerks in the Armed Forces during the Second World War and it was after their release from the Armed Forces that they joined the Irrigation Department as assistant Clerks in a temporary capacity. Later, by an order dated 29th October, 1956, they were confirmed as Assistant Clerks with effect from 1st February, 1949. Subsequently, they were promoted as Sub-Divisional Clerks, then as accounts Clerks and thereafter as Head Clerks. According to them, they were entitled to the benefit of the Punjab Government Services (War) Amendment rules, 1943 (hereinafter called the Rules) which were promulgated by the Home department of the Punjab Government by Notification No. 5011-G-43/59012 dated 18th September. 1943 and were published in the Puniab Government Gazette dated 24th September, 1943, at Lahore. In 1960, they received notices from respondent No. 2, asking them to show cause why the war service benefits, which had been erroneously given to them, be not withdrawn and they be not de-confirmed. In reply to the show cause notices, they submitted their representations, but the same were rejected on 29th February, 1964. They were informed that the benefit of war service, which was wrongly allowed to them, had been withdrawn forthwith as regards seniority. As a result, respondent No. 2 then passed orders changing the dates of confirmation of the petitioners as Assistant Clerks to their disadvantage and showing the respondents, other than respondents Nos. 1 and 2, as senior to them. The case of the petitioners was that this was against Rules and would adversely affect them so far as their confirmation, promotion, seniority and pension etc. , were concerned. That led to the filing of the present writ petition in june, 1964.

(3.) IN the return filed by respondent No. 2, it was stated that in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and subsequent clarifications given by the Government from time to time, the concession of war service was available only to those candidates who were initially appointed against permanent posts in the cadre of the service. It was not admissible in the case of those officials, who were appointed on temporary basis against temporary posts. All the petitioners were initially appointed as temporary hands against temporary posts. The vacancies for war service candidates had already been filled in the Joint Punjab before partition and no such vacancy was passed on to the share of the East Punjab Government at the time of partition. It was admitted that the petitioners were confirmed as assistant Clerks by the order dated 29th October 1956, but that was done erroneously by the Chief Engineer on account of the wrong interpretation of the rules and the instructions of the Punjab Government in that behalf. The mistake was, subsequently, corrected by de-confirming the petitioners by the order passed by respondent No. 2 on 5th June. 1964.