1998 INSC 0205
                                                   Yash Pal Bansal

                                                           Vs

                                           State of Punjab and Another

                                          Civil Appeal No. 1150 of 1998

                                (S. C. Agarwal, M. Srinivasan, A. P. Mishra JJ)

                                                      27.02.1998

                                                        ORDER

1. We have heard the learned counsel on the application for impleadment whereby it is requested
that four persons, namely, Malwinder Singh, Jatinder Singh, Darshan Singh and D. S. Bath be
impleaded as parties. Malwinder Singh and Jatinder Singh have already been impleaded as
Respondents 3 and 4. The remaining two persons, namely, Darshan Singh and D. S. Bath are only
pro forma respondents. We do not consider it necessary that they should be impleaded as
respondents. IA No. 5 is, therefore, dismissed.

2. Special leave granted.

3. This appeal relates to matter of seniority of the appellant in the cadre of Punjab Service Engineers
Class II (Irrigation Branch). The case of the appellant is that he had been appointed as Graduate
Engineer on ad hoc basis in a Centrally Sponsored Scheme sometime in 1973 and he was appointed
as Temporary Engineer in the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II (Irrigation Branch) with effect
from 1-6-1976. By order dated 28-7-1974 the seniority of Engineers in the Punjab Service of
Engineers Class II (Irrigation Branch) including that of the appellant herein had been fixed but the
said order was withdrawn by order dated 9-1-1995, in view of the fact that certain writ petitions
were pending in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 9-
1-1995, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana which was
dismissed by the High Court by impugned judgment dated 9-2-1996. The High Court has observed
that the appellant was not borne in the cadre of Punjab Government and as such he cannot get any
benefit of the services rendered by him under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme in which his
appointment was on ad hoc basis.

4. On behalf of the appellant, Shri P. P. Rao, the learned Senior Counsel as well as Shri Raju
Ramachandran, the learned Senior Counsel, have submitted that the High Court in the impugned
judgment has failed to appreciate the grievance of the appellant. The submission is that the
grievance of the appellant is that after his appointment on the post of Temporary Engineer with
effect from 1-6-1976, the appellant is borne in the cadre of Punjab Service of Engineers Class II
(Irrigation Branch) and he is entitled to have his seniority counted on the basis of such appointment
with effect from 1-6-1976. It is stated that the appellant is not claiming the benefit of his earlier
service as ad hoc Engineer in the Centrally Sponsored Scheme prior to his appointment on 1-6-1976
for the purpose of seniority in the Punjab Service of Engineers Class II (Irrigation Branch) and that
the said period is to be counted only for the purpose of fixation of his pay after his appointment in
the Punjab Service of Engineers Class II (Irrigation Branch) with effect from 1-6-1976. Since the
matter has not been considered by the High Court in the light of this grievance, we consider it
appropriate that the matter is remitted to the High Court for considering it in the light of the said
grievance of the appellant. We have been informed that the question of seniority of persons who
were appointed on temporary basis in the Punjab Service of Engineers Class II (Irrigation Branch) is
involved in some matters which are pending consideration before the High Court.

5. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside
and the matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration in the light of the grievance of the
appellant as indicated above. No order as to costs.