The respondents, however, seem to have received the orders on or after 1.11.1966.
The High Court then referred to the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II P.W.D. Buildings and Roads Branch Rules, 1965 for brevity, Class II 1965 Rules .
authenticated by Secretary to Government of Punjab, P.W.D. BR P.H. Branches recited The President of India, in companysultation with the Punjab Public Service Commission, does number companysider the following officiating Sub Divisional officers of Punjab, W.D. B R Branch, suitable for appointment to P.S.E. Class II B R Branch and accordingly they are reverted as indicated below with immediate effect.
The list companytains the names of 20 officers including the names of 12 respondents other than respondent Bhagwan Singh.
519 of 1970 and the sole respondent in each of the remaining 12 appeals are the companycerned Government servants.
Respondents R. R. Bhanot, Jodh Singh and Gurcharan Singh were so appointed between dates 17 12 1957 and 10 12 1959.
All the respondents except respondent Bhagwan Singh came to be allocated to the new State of Punjab.
Respondents Balbir Singh, Surmukh Singh, Dasaundi Ram, Jagdish Singh, Surat Singh, Kartar Singh and Gurbux Singh were promoted and appointed on officiating basis as Sub Divisional Officers in the Punjab Public Works Department Buildings and Roads Branch on various dates between 30 7 1960 to 10 5 1963.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated the 21st May, 1969 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in L.P.As.
Their writ applications were allowed by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
The stand on behalf of the State of Punjab in the High Court was 1 that the 1942 Rules did number govern the cases of the respondents as the said Rules applied to class I service companysisting of Assistant Executive Engineers and officers of higher ranks only 2 that the respondents had to be taken in P.S.E. Class II service in accordance with Rule 6 5 b of Class II 1965 Rules read with paragraph 1 d of Appendix G of the said Rules, in companysultation with the Punjab Public Service Commission 3 that since the Commission did number find them suitable for being admitted to that service, they were reverted to their substantive rank in accordance with the terms and companyditions of their service and number by way of punishment.
519 does number seem to be in service any longer and numberbody has appeared in this Court on his behalf.
Bhagwan Singh, respondent in Civil Appeal No.
The said 13 Government servants alongwith two more filed 15 writ petitions to challenge order dated the October 28, 1966 made by the Government of the erstwhile undivided State of Punjab.
Respondents Shamsher Singh and Bhakhtawar Singh were promoted on 22 10 1956 and 1 3 1956 respectively.
Bhagwan Singh also relied upon 1942 Rules before the learned single Judge and succeeded.
Respondent Kartar Singh was working as planning Assistant cum Draftsman while the other respondents were Overseers before they were appointed as officiating Sub Divisional Officers.
The factual position in relation to the point at issue is like this.
15 Letters Patent Appeals were filed by the appellants.
529 530 and N. S. Das Bahl In A. 519 528 for the Appellants.
The said Rules came into force from February 19, 1965.
After companyiously quoting from the 1942 Rules, the High Court in appeal has referred to the Punjab Service of Engineers Class I P.W.D. Buildings and Roads Branch Rules 1960 for brevity, the 1960 Rules regulating the recruitment and companyditions of service of persons appointed to the P.S.E. Class I service.
286, 327, 340, 368, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 502 and 511 of 1968.
Civil Appeals of 1970 L. P. As of Names of the Govt.
This aspect of the matter is number squarely companyered by the decision of this Court in Shamsher Singh Anr.
By the impugned order dated October 28, 1966 the then Government of the erstwhile Punjab State reverted them to their original rank.
524, 527 and 528 , and P. C. Bhartari In all appeals for the Respondents.
13 appeals have been brought to this Court and number the other two.
Respondent Bhagwan Singh was appointed as temporary Assistant Engineer on companypletion of his six months training period with effect from December 3, 1960.
P. Sharma In all appeals V. C. Mahajan In C.A. Kapil Sibal In C.As.
Since the Division Bench of High Court has disposed of all the 15 Letters Patent appeals by a companymon judgment, to avoid companyfusion in the statement of facts we think it better to state in a chart form the number of the Civil Appeal the companyresponding number of the L.P.A. and the name of the Government servant companycerned.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
They have been dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court.
They claimed that they had become automatically companyfirmed as members of the service under the said Rules and companyld number be reverted without companyplying with the provisions of Article 311 2 of the Constitution of India and the other statutory Rules relating to disciplinary matters.
368 Dasaundi Ram 522 374 Jagdish Singh 523 375 R. R. Bhanot 524 376 Surat Singh 525 377 Shamsher Singh 526 378 Bakhatawar Singh 527 379 Jodh Singh 528380 Kartar Singh 529502 Gurcharan Singh 530 511 Gurbux Singh nil 289 Devdutta nil 328 Sushil Kumar Khallar At the outset it may be stated that the respondent in Civil Appeal No.
Under sections 3 and 4 were formed the State of Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
The Division Bench has very carefully and elaborately companysidered the application of the 1942 Rules to the cases of the respondents.
518 to 530 of 1970.
P. Bhandari In CA 521 M. R. Agnihotri In CA 522 J.John in Cas.
On the appointed day i.e. On 1 11 1966 the former State of Punjab ceased to exist and the successor States of Punjab, Haryana, Union Territory of Chandigarh and the Transferred Territory came into being.
K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja, M. Qamaruddin, P. N. Puri and K. L. Mehta for Respondents In CA.
His service was terminated by the then Punjab Government by order dated October 28, 1966 on the ground of his having been found unsuitable for appointment to P.S.E. Class II B R Branch .
This was the only point which succeeded before the learned single Judge and he allowed all the writ applications, it appears, without fully appreciating, the distinction of facts of the various cases for the acceptance of this ground.
The orders of their reversion were challenged by the said respondents on the ground that they were governed by the Punjab Service of Engineers, Buildings and Roads Branch Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1942 for brevity, the 1942 Rules .
N. Phadke, Mrs. Archana Kumar, M. R. Agnihotri and C. Bhartari for Respondents in C.A. 526.
The order in the name of the President of India .
The Division Bench treating it as a pure question of law allowed it to be raised in the Letters Patent appeals and ultimately dismissed the appeals by holding in favour of the appellants that since the impugned orders were companymunicated to them after companying into force of the new successor States they companyld number affect their status and position which they held on 1.11.1966.
Only 4 of the respondents in Civil Appeals 518, 520, 528 and 530 are still in service.
Under the Act certain territories were carved out from the appoint ed day from the then existing State of Punjab.
servants 1968 518 286 Balbir Singh 519 327 Bhagwan Singh 520 340 Surmukh Singh 521 .
The erstwhile State of Punjab was under the Presidents Rule before its re organization.
521 Dasaundi Ram is dead and that appeal has abated on that account.
Respondent number 1 in Civil Appeal No.
Out of the remaining 11 respondents, we were informed at the Bar, that the 7 respondents in Civil Appeals 522 to 527 and 529 have since retired from service.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA, J. In these 13 appeals by special leave the appellants are 1 the State of Punjab, 2 Union of India.
8E/47/Re org/11670 710 dated 30.10.1966.
