Shri Nagin Singh Grewal vs The State of Punjab and others

B.R. Tuli, J.—This judgment will dispose of C.W. 2345 of 1966 Nagin Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab and others and C.W. 762 of 1967, Partap Singh Satnam v. State of Punjab and others. as both of them relate to the seniority of the petitioners quo the respondents, and all of them are the employees of the Punjab State Electricity Board.

Nagin Singh Grewal, petitioner in C.W. 2345 of 1966, obtained a degree of B. Sc. (Electricial) Engineering from the Punjab Engineering College, Roorkee (U.P.) in the year 1951. His appointment order shows that he had been sent to that College by the Pepsu Government as its nominee. He was appointed "as a temporary Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department for a period of 6 months or till selection of a suitable candidate is made by the Public Service Commission, whichever is earlier, with effect from the date of his taking over." This order was issued on April 24, 1953, and the petitioner joined service on April 27, 1953 It has been stated in the return filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board that the petitioner''s temporary appointment was renewed from time to time, the last renewal being up to February 28, 1957. He was confirmed on the cadre of Pepsu Engineering Service Class II with effect from October 25, 1956. Against this confirmation, the petitioner made no representation and on its basis he was integrated in the service of the new State of Punjab which was formed as a result of the merger of the States of Punjab and Pepsu with effect from November 1, 1956.

Partap Singh Satnam, petitioner in C.W. 762 of 1967, obtained a degree of Bachelor of Science (Electrical and Mechanical Engineering) from the Banaras Hindu University, Benaras in 1951, and was appointed as a temporary Assistant Engineer in Pepsu Public Works Department, Electrical and Mechanical Branch in the time-scale of Rs. 250-25-550/25-750, and he joined duty on August 12, 1952. By an order dated September 10, 1956, Kirpal Singh, officiating Sub Divisional Officer, was confirmed as Assistant Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical) against one of the existing vacancies in the cadre of Pepsu Engineering Service Class II with effect from that date. Against that confirmation, the petitioner filed a representation on September 22, 1956, claiming that he should have been confirmed earlier than Kirpal Singh. As a result of his representation, he was confirmed by an order dated October 25, 1956, along with some other temporary Assistant Engineers, who petitioner again represented against the date of his confirmation Which was revised to August 2, 1954, on which date a vacancy in the permanent strength of the cadre had occurred. By notification dated October 25, 1956, the date of confirmation of Kirpal Singh was fixed as March 27, 1954, when an earlier vacancy in the permanent strength of the cadre had occurred. According to the petitioner, he filed a representation against the earlier confirmation of Kirpal Singh on October 30, 1956, but it was never decided According to the Punjab State Electricity Board, this representation is not to be found on the records and the petitioner has not filed a copy of that representation. It has, therefore, to be ignored. He was integrated in the service of the new State of Punjab, which came into being after the merger of the two former States of Punjab and Pepsu with effect from November 1, 1956, on the basis of his date of confirmation being August 2, 1954.

A joint seniority list for the purposes of integration of the Services of the two States was issued by the Punjab State in 1958 and against their placements in that list, the petitioners filed representations. Before those representations could be decided, the Punjab State Electricity board was formed and the petitioners were allocated to that Board along with other personnel of the Electricity Department of the Punjab Government, Their representations along with the representations of other officers were placed for decision before the Government of India in accordance with the provisions of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956, and a copy of U.O. No. 3004-Integ.63, dated June 5, 1963. from the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Integration Department to the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Irrigation and Power departments (Electricity Branch), shows that those representations were considered by the Government of India on the advice of the Central Advisory Committee and it was decided that the same should be considered and disposed of by the State Government as the claims related to the parent State seniority. Accordingly, the representations of the petitioners along with the representation of Kirpal Singh, respondent, were returned to the Electricity Branch of the Punjab Government, Irrigation and Power Department, for disposal by the Head of the Department/Administrative Department themselves. The representation of the petitioners were considered by the Punjab State Electricity Board and were rejected in July and August, 1966. The petitioners then filed the present petitions to which written statements have been filed by various respondents.

Since the seniority of the petitioners in the joint cadre of the new State of Punjab was fixed on the basis of the date of entry into service of Kirpal Singh respondent, it is necessary to state the facts of that respondent. Kirpal Singh was holding the post of Superintendent, Power House, in Patiala State and officiated as Sub-Divisional Officer from time to time for a period of about 7 1/2 years and ultimately he was promoted to the post of temporary Assistant Engineer with effect from January 4, 1954, and from that date onwards he held that post continuously. His prior officiation as Sub Divisional Officer was not continuous. As stated above, he was confirmed as Assistant Engineer in the Pepsu Engineering Service Class II with effect from March 27, 1954, the date on which a permanent vacancy in the cadre occurred. When Partap Singh Satnam filed his representation against the confirmation of Kirpal Singh, the matter was examined and the note on the file shows that the seniority in a cadre was determined from one''s date of entry in the cadre and that Partap Singh Satnam having been selected by the Public Service Commission joined as a temporary Assistant Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical) with effect from August 12, 1952, while Kirpal Singh was promoted departmentally from the post of Superintendent, Power House for a period of six months in the first instance with effect from January 5, 1954. He was approved by the Public Service Commission in June, 1954, and on this basis Partap Singh Satnam was senior to him, but Kirpal Singh was given preference over Partap Singh Satnam because he had served as an officiating Sub-Divisional Officer on previous occasions and his total officiating period came to about 7 1/2 years which was more than the total service of Partap Singh Satnam, which was about four years. It was further stated in the note that Kirpal Singh was given preference and confirmation earlier than Partap Singh Satnam because he was the senior-most permanent engineering subordinate of the Department. This note further shows that some posts of Assistant Engineers of Bhakra Electricity Circle were being converted from temporary to permanent ones and it was, therefore, suggested that the confirmation of Partap Singh Satnam might be considered against one of those posts, if approved. This note was written on October 11, 1956, and this suggestion was accepted by the higher authorities on October 18, 1956. Partap Singh Satnam was confirmed by office order No. 127/E dated October 25, 1956, and he represented on the same day that a post of Assistant Engineer in the permanent cadre was lying vacant in the E and M Circle since long and he being No. 1 in the seniority list, should be confirmed from the date the post fell vacant or from the date of his appointment whichever was later. Since Partap Singh Satnam was claiming seniority over Kirpal Singh, their cases were decided together and the decision was to give preference to Kirpal Singh over Partap Singh Satnam in view of his previous officiating service as Sub-Divisional Officer. While deciding the basis of integration in the new State or Punjab, Assistant Engineers of Punjab were equated with the Assistant Engineers of Pepsu. whether permanent, temporary or officiating, in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Services Integration Rules, 1957. In the seniority list prepared in the State of Pepsu, Kirpal Singh was shown senior to Partap Singh Satnam, Nagin Singh Grewal and three others officers and his date of entry into service was mentioned as January 4, 1954, with the result that according to the principle of continuous length of service, Kirpal Singh was considered junior to the officers of the Punjab State who had entered service before that date. Rule 16 of the said rules provided that inter se seniority of the officers of one State was not to be disturbed while integrating the services of the two States and for this reason the petitioners could not be given seniority according to the date of their entry into service because of Kirpal Singh''s seniority over them and his date of entry into service being later than that of theirs. The petitioners'' case is that the seniority of Kirpal Singh over them was wrongly fixed and in any case their seniority could not be suppressed in view of the earlier confirmation of Kirpal Singh The relevant rules of the Punjab Services Integration Rules, 1957, are Rules 14 to 17. Rule 15(a) lays down the principle that the length of continuous service was to determine the inter se seniority of the employees of the Punjab State and Pepsu State while Rule 16 provided that inter se seniority of any employee in the parent state was not to he disturbed in determining his seniority in the State of Punjab under the said rules. Rule 17 enjoined that the total continuous service in the equated service or group of equated services of the Punjab State and the Pepsu State, as the case may be whether temporary, officiating, quasi-permanent or permanent, was to be taken into account. Service on probation was also to be counted if the period of probation had been completed successfully.

It is the common case of the parties that in the State of Pepsu there were no rules under which the Pepsu Engineering Service was constituted and consequently the seniority of the members of the Service was to be determined in accordance with the orders of the Ijlas-i-Khas dated February 18, 1946, as amended on July 31, 1946. These orders are reproduced below:

Whereas it is expedient to prescribe a general set of rules for regulating seniority of State servants inter se in the different grades, cadres, and classes of State service.

Now, therefore, we are hereby pleased to lay down the following rules for the aforesaid purpose, subject of course, to any specific departmental rules or orders on the subject:

The new comer will rank senior to all State servants in the new office in grades lower than his own grade.

In respect of those State servants in the new office who are in the same grade as his own. the new comer will rank,

(a) senior to those who draw a lower rate of pay,

(b) senior to those who draw the same pay but from a later date,

(c) according to the length of service in case more than one person draws same pay in the same grade from the same date,

(d) according to the order in which names are placed by the officer making the appointment if more than one appointments are made.

The conditions mentioned in Rule 2 above, shall also govern State servants already in an office insofar as they are applicable to them.

A reduced hand who is re-employed in a Department on a pay or grade less than what he enjoyed before reduction on account of no fault of his, will be considered senior to all State servants in that lower grade in the new Office.

The above rules are subject to the proviso that if any officer is granted special personal pay or first appointment or promotion he shall not become senior in his cadre unless special rank and precedence is specifically conferred upon him.

Corrigendum

In partial modification of the Ijlas-i-Khas order No. 58 dated 18.2.1946, prescribing a general set of rules for regulating seniority of State servants inter se in the different grades, cadres and classes of State Service, His Highness Shri 103 Maharajadhiraj Mahendra Bahadur has been pleased to command that Rule 5 of the said Order shall be revised so as to read as under:

The above rules are subject to the proviso that if a State servant is promoted from menial service to ministerial or from ministerial to gazetted service, the seniority in that case will count from the date of appointment to that class of service regardless of the pay.

Provided further that if any officer is granted special personal pay on first appointment or promotion, he shall not become senior in his cadre unless special rank and precedence is specifically conferred upon him.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that these orders of the Ijlas-i-Khas applied for determining the inter se seniority of the members of any Service in the State of Pepsu for which no provision had been made in any other rules as the laws of the erstwhile Patiala State were made applicable to the entire State of Pepsu by abrogating the laws of the other covenanting States It is thus submitted that when Kirpal Singh was promoted as temporary Assistant Engineer on january 4 1954, the petitioners were already in service since August 12, 1952, (Partap Singh Satnam) and April 27, 1953, (Nagin Singh Grewal) and, therefore, he could not be placed senior to them according to Clause (I) of the Ijlas-i-Khas order dated February 18, 1946. On behalf of Kirpal Singh, it is submitted that Clauses (2) and (5) applied to his case and since he was drawing a higher salary than the petitioners, when he was appointed as temporary Assistant Engineer on January 4, 1954, and a specific order as to confirmation and seniority was passed in his case, he was entitled to seniority over them. In reply to this submission, reliance is placed on the corrigendum to the Ijlas-i-Khas order issued on July 31, 1946, according to which the pay drawn by an officer promoted from ministerial to gazetted service was of no consequence and the seniority was to be determined according to appointment to that class of Service, It is, therefore, pleaded that irrespective of the salary drawn by Kirpal Singh, because he was promoted from a ministerial service to gazetted service, his seniority was to be determined according to the date of his appointment as temporary Assistant Engineer on January 4, 1954 The learned counsel for Kirpal Singh in reply, points out that Kirpal Singh was not a ministerial servant before his promotion as temporary Assistant Engineer and a specific order having been passed in his case, the provisions of Clause 5 as amended were also complied with and so his confirmation before and seniority above the petitioners was in accordance with the provisions of the orders of the Ijlas-i-Khas. Reference is made to Regulation 2. 36 in the Pepsu Service Regulations which defines a "ministerial servant" as under "''Ministerial servant'' means a Government servant other than gazetted whose duties are entirely clerical and any other class of servants specially defined as such by general or special orders of the Government."

It is submitted that the duties of Kirpal Singh before his promotion were not clerical as he was Superintendent of the Power House and was holding required technical skill, and which post had not been specially defined by any general or special orders of the Government so as to constitute its incumbent a "ministerial servant". No general or special order has been brought on the record to prove that Kirpal Singh was a ministerial servant. I must, therefore, hold that the corrigendum to the Ijlas-i-Khas order issued on July 31, 1946, did not apply to the case of Kirpal Singh and, even if it did, its provisions were complied with as a specific order in his case was passed. He was, therefore, rightly placed as senior to the petitioners and confirmed earlier than them.

It is evident that the petitioners have been suppressed in their seniority vis-a-vis the Punjab counter parts because of the seniority of Kirpal Singh fixed in Pepsu. It is, however, apparent from the record produced before me that on September 27, 1956, a seniority list of the groups of services consisting of Pepsu Engineering Service Class II (Pepsu P.W. D. Electricity Branch) including those officers against posts sanctioned for a year or more in the scale of Rs. 625-1275 was prepared by the Chief Engineer and the Secretary to Government, P.W. D. Pepsu, in which only two officers Harbux Singh and Kirpal Singh, were shown at Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. In this list Harbux Singh was shown as a permanent Assistant Engineer P.U. En. S. Class II with effect from March 10, 1947, while Kirpal Singh was shown as a permanent Assistant Engineer P.U. En. S. Class II, having entered service on January 4, 1954. In the remarks column, the particulars of the service of Kirpal Singh from April 13, 1928, to January 3, 1954, are given, On the same date, another seniority list of the group of Services consisting temporary Assistant Engineers, Pepsu P.W. D. Electricity Branch, was prepared by the same Chief Engineer in which the names of the petitioners were shown as temporary Assistant Engineers. From these two lists, it is abundantly clear that the Chief Engineer and Secretary to Government. P.W. D. Pepsu, did not consider the temporary Assistant Engineers as members of the Pepsu Engineering Service Class II. This view of the Chief Engineer was probably based on the notification dated March 6, 1954, issued by the P.W. D. Secretariat of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union, in which the strength of the Assistant Engineers constituting the P, U. En. S. Class II, was stated as 29. Annexure III to the notification is the integration and seniority list of Patiala Union Engineering Service Class I and II, as it stood on February 1, 1954, and in this list the names of 23 Assistant Engineers Class II are mentioned while 6 posts are shown vacant. From this list, it is apparent that the temporary Assistant Engineers were not considered to be members of the P.U. En S. Class II, Another document brought on the record is notification No- 149 dated June 28, 1949, issued by P.W. D. Secretariat of the Pepsu Government, which shows that 29 Sub Divisional Officers were appointed substantively as members of the Patiala Union Engineering Service Class II and the names of those 29 Sub-Divisional Officers are mentioned except in respect of three posts (20-23) which are shown as vacant. In this list, officers at Nos. 24 to 29 are described as temporary which shows that temporary Sub Divisional Officers were also considered as members of the P.U. En. S Class II. It is then stated in this notification "Seniority inter se of temporary officers will be fixed according to the dates of their confirmation in the cadre". It may be pointed out here that the name of the post was later changed from Sub-Divisional Officer to Assistant Engineeer. From this notification, it is apparent that even temporary Sub Divisional Officers were members of the P.U. En. S. Class II and their seniority has to be determined from the date of confirmation and not from the date of appointment. This order, therefore, related to only those Sub Divisional Officers who were mentioned therein and not to the future entrants to the Service and no assistance can be derived therefrom in support of the contention of the respondents that the temporary Assistant Engineers did not become members of the P.U. En. S. Class II till they were confirmed. The notification dated March 6, 1954, referred to above, does indicate that temporary Assistant Engineers were not treated as members of the Service, but it is not shown when and what decision was taken in this behalf in consequence of which this annxure was prepared. The Chief Engineer also appears to have prepared the seniority lists on September 27, 1956, to which a reference has been made above, on the same basis.

Be that as it may, this fact seems to be irrelevant in view of the decision to integrate the Assistant Engineers Class II officers of both the States irrespective of the fact whether they were temporary or permanent in the Service, Rule 15 of the Punjab Services Integration Rules 1957, only provided the length of continuous service as the criterion for fixing inter se seniority and Rule 17 provided that service of every kind, whether temporary officiating, quasi-permanent or permanent, was to be taken into account. It is tot disputed by the respondents that temporary Assistant Engineers like the petitioners, when taken into service, were allowed the grade of Rs. 250-750 meant for the Assistant Engineers who were members of P.U. En. S. Class II, It is always open to the Government to increase or decrease the cadre of a Service according to the exigencies and requirements of the Service and thus temporary Assistant Engineers employed by the State of Pepsu were to be treated as members of the P.U. En. S. Class II like the permanent Assistant Engineers. The only disability from which the temporary Assistant Engineers suffered till they were made permanent was the liability to be discharged from service on giving them the notice of the prescribed period of one month or more. It has not been shown that any separate service had been constituted for them, In fact, the confirmation orders passed in September and October, 1956, whereby various temporary Assistant Engineers were confirmed, shows that they were members of the Service and had the right to be confirmed whenever a permanent vacancy arose or the number of permanent posts in the cadre was increased. I, therefore, repel the contention advanced on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners and other temporary Assistant Engineers became members of the P.U. En. S Class II only from the dates of their confirmation and not from the dates of their appointment as temporary Assistant Engineers.

I may also point out that in the State of Punjab, the conditions of service of the members of the Punjab Service of Engineers in the Electricity Branch were governed by the Rules, called "The Punjab Service of Engineers (Electricity Branch) (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1939", Appendix ''A'' to these Rules shows that 32 Assistant Engineers Class II in the time scale of Rs. 250-25-550/25-750 were members of the Service but at the time of integration 101 Assistant Engineers Class II of the Punjab State, both permanent and officiating, were integrated with 37 Assistant Engineers of Pepsu State, both permanent and officiating. In the equation statement prepared at the time of integration, that class of Pepsu Service was described as P.U. En. S Class II in the scale of Rs. 250-25/550/25-750. The corresponding particulars of the Punja Service are mentioned as P.S.E. Class if in the scale of Rs. 250-25-550/21-750- From this equation statement, it is quite clear that the Assistant Engineers, whether permanent or officiating, in P.U. En. S. Class II, who had been appointed in the scale of Rs. 250-750, were equated with the Assistant Engineers, whether permanent or officiating, of the Punjab State in the same scale. The temporary Assistant Engineers were taken as officiating Assistant Engineers for the purposes of integration. The temporary Assistant Engineers of the Punjab State made a representation to the effect that either the date of entry into Service of the temporary Engineers of Pepsu should be taken as the date of their confirmation, and not the date of appointment as temporary Assistant Engineers, or in their own case their date of entry into service should be antedated by two years on account of the period that they served as Apprentice Engineers. This representation was rejected by the Government and, in my opinion, rightly. Apprentice Engineers were, no doubt, members of the Punjab Service of Engineers in the Electricity Branch but were of a lower rank than the Assistant Engineers Class II, their scales of pay being different. The scale of pay of Assistant Engineers Class II was Rs. 250-750 while the pay-scale of Apprentice Engineers was Rs. 200-20-240. It is thus apparent that after serving as Apprentice Engineers the officers were appointed as temporary Assistant Engineers Class II and they continued to be temporary till they were confirmed. In Pepsu State, the officers were directly appointed as temporary Assistant Engineers which meant as members of the P.U. En. S. Class II and not as Apprentice Engineers. If continuous length service as Assistant Engineers is to be seen, then the Assistant Engineers of Pepsu were to be integrated with the Assistant Engineers of Punjab on the basis of their entry into service from which date they continued to serve as Assistant Engineers without a break irrespective of the fact whether they were temporary or permanent.

In the present cases, injustice has been done to the petitioners on account of the fact that Kirpal Singh respondent was confirmed earlier than them, his date of entry into service having been mentioned as January 4, 1954, and this date of his entry into service suppressed the seniority of the petitioners on the ground that they could not be made senior to him in the joint seniority list. It appears that nobody applied his mind to this aspect of the matter. I have already pointed out above that the Chief Engineer prepared the seniority list on September 27, 1956, treating temporary Assistant Engineers as not members of the P.U. En. S. Class 11 and in the list of P.U. En. S, Class II Kirpal Singh was the junior out of the two Assistant Engineers who had been included. The first one had his date of entry into service as March 10, 1947, and Kirpal Singh as January 4, 1954. Nobody would have had any greivance if the merger of the two States had not taken place or if it had been the case that temporary Assistant Engineers were not members of the P.U. En. S Class II. To do justice to the temporary Assistant Engineers of Pepsu State, the seniority list of the Assistant Engineers, permanent and temporary, should have been revised after the Punjab Services Integration Rules, 1957, were framed according to which the P.U. En. S. Class II was to be integrated with P.S. E. Class II because of the same pay scale of pay. The Chief Engineer of Pepsu could not visualise that fact in September, 1956, nor the principles of integration of services as the rules were framed in 1957. The revised seniority list, to conform with those rules, should have been prepared according to the well-known principle that in the first instance a provisional list is prepared which is circulated to the officers concerned to invite their objections and is finalised after their objections are adjudicated upon. Admittedly, no such procedure was followed in the case of temporary Assistant Engineers in the Pepsu State nor was any such list prepared after integration in spite of the representations of the petitioners which were liter forwarded to the Punjab State Electricity Board for decision by the Union of India. Kirpal Singh had been confirmed earlier than the petitioners and made senior to them on the basis that he had rendered officiating service as Sub-Divisional Officer from time to time for a period of about 7 1/2 years and that he was drawing a higher salary than the petitioners when he was promoted as temporary Assistant Engineer on January 4, 1954. At that time, the salary of Kirpal Singh was fixed at Rs. 375,00 in the pay-scale of Rs. 250-25-55o/25-750 whereas on that date Partap Singh Satnam and Nagin Singh Grewal were driving a salary of Rs. 275.00 and Ks. 250.00 respectively. On that basis, Kirpal Singh should have also been given a deemed date of entry into P.U. En. S. Class II instead of January 4, 1954 and this deemed date should have been some date prior to the date of entry into service of the seniormost temporary Assistant Engineer who was then working in the Department, that is Partap Singh Satnam. If that had been done, Kirpal Singh would have remained senior to the petitioners and the seniority of the petitioners would not have been suppressed while integrating them with the Punjab Officers by making them junior to those who had entered service on or before January 4, 1954, I am, therefore, of the opinion that the seniority list of the Pepsu Assistant Engineers, permanent and temporary, in the pay-scale of Rs. 250 -750, who were equated with P.S. E. Class II personnel of the Punjab State, should have been prepared by showing the appointment of Kirpal Singh as temporary Assistant Engineer from a date earlier than the date of entry into service of Partap Singh Satnam because he had been given preference over the petitioners in matters of confirmation seniority and pay on the basis of his past officiating service in the equivalent rank of Sub-Divisional Officer and the same basis could be used for giving him a deemed date of entry into service as explained above.

Before parting with the case, in fairness to the learned counsel for some of the respondents, I must deal with the preliminary objection raised by them that the writ petitions deserved to be dismissed on the ground of laches. It is submitted that the confirmations of Kirpal Singh and the petitioners were made in September and October 1956, to which no objection was taken by the petitioners at that time and it is not open to them now to agitate the matter after ten years because the writ petitions were filed in 1966 and 1967 I, however find no merit in this submission in view of the facts which have been stated earlier in this judgment, that is, Partap Singh Satnam did make a representation against the confirmation of Kirpal Singh earlier than him as a result of which the dates of confirmation of both of them were ante-dated. After October 25 and 26, 1956, when final orders of confirmation were made, the time was too short before the merger of the two States took place on November 1, 1956, for making any effective representation. After the merger of the two States the petitioners legitimately waited for the preparation of the point seniority list so that if justice had been done to them while preparing that list, they would have had no cause of action to file the present petitions. It is only because justice was not done to them that they filed representations to the Government as prescribed by the Integration Rules. There representations were decided in July and August, 1966, and promptly thereafter they filed the present petitions. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioners were guilty of laches in filing the present petitions and that their demand for the revision of the seniority list is a stale demand. In this connection it should also be borne in mind that no seniority list was prepared in Pepsu which was circulated to the officers concerned nor were they afforded any opportunity to object to their placements in any such list. The lists were prepared by the Chief Engineer on his own on September 27, 1956, and were passed on to his counter-part in the State of Punjab because, in anticipation of the merger of the two States such like lists were being exchanged Thus the joint seniority list prepared after the merger was the only list to which the petitioners could raise their objections which they did by making representations promptly and within the prescribed time. I, therefore, repel the preliminary objection of the learned counsel for the respondents.

For the reasons given above, I accept these petitions and quash the joint seniority list with a direction to the Punjab State Electricity Board to prepare a list of seniority of the Assistant Engineers of P.U. En. S. Class II, both permanent and temporary, on the basis indicated above and then to integrate them with their counter-parts of the Punjab State. Since the matters involved in these petitions were fairly complicated, I make no order as to costs.

B.R. Tuli, J.

February 24, 1971. After I had pronounced the judgment. It was brought to my notice by the learned counsel for Shri M.M. Sharma, respondent 2 in Civil Writ No. 2345 of 1966, and respondent 17 in Civil Writ No. 762 of 1967, that the petitioners stated at the time of hearing of the petitions that they did not claim any relief against this respondent This is so and it is by inadvertence that this fact was not mentioned in the judgment. Against Shri M.M. Sharma these petitions will be deemed to have been dismissed with no order as to costs.