AMARJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 82 · Decided: 20-12-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

82 
AMARJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
December 20, 1974 
[K, K. MATHEW, P. N. BHAGWATI AND N. L, UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
Civil Service-llltegration of two services-Memorandum issued by Govern-
ment fixing inter se seniority-"Colltinuous Service" and "date of appolntmem" 
meaning of, 
With effect from 15th July, 1964 the Provincial Civil Medical Service and 
the Public: lkalth Service of the State were integrated into one service. After 
integration, class I and class II posts in the respective services before integration 
were equated lo class I and 11 posts in the combined cadre. While the post 
of District Medical Officer corresponded to class II in the combined cadre the 
post of Assistant Director of Health corresponded to class I in the combined 
cadre. Before integra\ion the State Government by its order dated April 8, 
1964 promoted with immediate 'effect respondents 3 to 19 who were c:lass n 
officer in the Provincial Medical Service to class I but since the order could 
not be convei1ed to them 1mmeaia1ely, they j01ned their posts on di.fferent 
dates between April 27, 1964 and May J 1, 1964. At the time of integration 
the appellant, a class II officer, though working in the post of Assistant Director 
with effect from April 25, J 964, was not promoted to that post but was merely 
working in that post on his own pay scale as District Medical officer of 
Health. His r•::presentation that he should be promoted to the post of Ai;sistant 
Director with retrospecive effect from April 25, 1964 since he was working 
in that post was considered by the State Government and he was allowed to 
·:ontinue in that post on the dale of integration. 
He was absorbed in a 
class I post but his place in the combined cadre was b~Iow that of respondents 
3 to 19. 
For the purpose of determining inter se seniority of officers belong.ing to 
the two services the State Government issued a memorandum on October 25, 
1965, clause (2)(ii) of which stated that seniority of Deputy Directors and 
Assistant Directors on the cadte of the Public Health' on integration in PCMS-I 
should be !ermined with reference to the length of continuous service from 
the date of appointment in the group subject to the condition that the seniority 
of a person in parent seniority list will not be disturbed. 
The appellant claimed that on the basis of the principle laid down in 
clause 2(ii) of the office memorandum he was entitled to seniority over rnspon· 
dents 3 to 19 because his continuous servir.e started from April 25, 1964 while 
that of respondents 3 to 19 •started only after that date. The State Govern-
ment rejected this claim of the appellant and issued orders that the seniority 
of respondents 3 to 19 should be reckoned from the date of their appoini:ment 
namely. April 8, 1964. 
In a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution a single Judge of the 
High Court ac:epted this contention of the appellant that he was senior to 
-respondents 3 to 
19 and allowed the writ petition. On appeal the division 
bench held that the memorandum dated October 25, 1965 laid down th 0 prin-
ciple determining seniority only for Deputy Directors and Assistant Directors 
in the Public Health Service on integration in PGMS in Class I and did not 
provide as to how seniority of medical officers already in the Provincial Civil 
Medical Service Class I shall be determined vis-a-vis Deputy Directors and 
Assistant Directors on integration. The High Court upheld the order of the 
Government determining that the seniority of respondents 3 to 19 shal'I be 
reckoned from the date of the order of appointment, namely, AFril 8, 1964 
Irrespective as to when they assumed charge of their hip )IOSts. 
On appeal to this Court it was contended that continuous service in a . post 
could commence only when the incumbent took. .;barge of the post and not 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
c 
E 
G 
n 
A. s. AHLUWALIA v. PUNJAB (Bhagwaii, J.) 
83 
earlier. a~d os suc,h respondents 3 to 19 who took charge after the appellant 
were 111nior to him. The State on the other hand contended thM it was 
competent to it to fix an assumed date on which the continuous service of 
respondents 3 to 19' shall be deemed to have 
commenced for the purpose 
of determining seniority in the integrated service. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
· 
HELD : (I) On a proper interpretation of clause 2 (ii) of the memoran• 
dum dated Oiotob~r 25. 1965 the principle of length of continuous service from 
the ~ate

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.