Malik GULZAR AHMAD vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary to Government of Punjab and others
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's claim for seniority in the rank of Executive Engineer over respondents 2 to 116. The petitioner, an Irrigation Department employee, was promoted to Sub-Divisional Officer in 1960 and later granted Class-I (junior) status effective from 22-7-1971, following the government's recognition of his A.M.I.E. qualification as equivalent to an engineering degree. Respondents 2 to 116 were promoted to Executive Engineer prior to the petitioner's own promotion to that grade on 7-7-1977. The petitioner contended that because his induction date into Class-I was identical to that of the respondents, his longer prior service in Class-II should entitle him to seniority. The Supreme Court found that this contention regarding the determination of seniority based on prior service in a lower grade, despite a common date of induction into the higher grade, required further judicial examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider the merits of the seniority dispute.
- Does longer service in a lower grade (Class-II) entitle an employee to seniority over others promoted to a higher grade (Class-I) on the same date?
- Is the date of induction into a higher service grade the sole determinant of seniority when prior service duration differs?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the petitioner wherein he had claimed seniority in the rank of Executive Engineer over respondents 2 to 116.
2. The petitioner joined the Irrigation Department as Overseer on 19-101944. In 1951 he qualified as Associate Member of Institution of Engineering (A.M.I.E.). On 3-6-1960 he was promoted as Sub- Divisional Officer.
3. By a notification issued on 22-7-1971, the Government of the Punjab granted class-I status to the graduate Engineers serving in the irrigation department who were initially appointed as Assistant Engineers or Assistant Design Engineers. Consequent upon the issuance of this notification a large number of respondents were inducted into class-I service. Subsequently, the Government recognised the qualification of A.M.I.E. As equivalent to a degree in Engineering. As a result the petitioner was also granted the status of class-I (junior) with effect from 22-7-1971. Prior to the petitioner's induction into class-I, respondents Nos.2 to 116 were promoted as Executive engineers.
On 7-7-1977 the petitioner was also promoted to that grade. The petitioner claimed seniority over respondents Nos.2 to 166 on the ground that he had longer service as Sub-Divisional Officer than the latter but his claim was rejected both by the department and the Service Tribunal. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
4. In support of this petition it is inter alia contended that as the date of his induction into class-I (junior) was the same as that of respondents Nos.2 to 116 and he had longer service than the said respondents in class-II, he should have been assigned a higher position in the seniority list. This contention needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs,2,000.
The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any, and listed at an early date.
' Leave to .