Appeal Nos 182 and 183 of 1993
From the Judgment and Order dated 6686 of the Central Ad ministrative Tribunal Chandigarh in OATA Nos49  102 of 1986
Raj Birbal for the Appellant
Rajinder Sachher Mahabir Singh and AK Mahajan for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH J
Kamlesh Baboo and VK Bhardwaj were promoted as Executive Engineer Civil with effect from January 21 1986 in the Engineering Department of the Chandigarh Administration
The promotion was made on the basis of merit and suitability as determined under the provisions of the Punjab Service of Engineers Class I Buildings and Road Branch Rules 1960 Rules as applicable to the Chandigarh Administration
Both of them approached the Central Administrative 123 Tribunal Chandigarh Bench seeking a direction to the effect that their seniority in the cadre of Executive Engineers be determined from the date when they became eligible to be considered for promotion under the Rules
In other words they claimed January 1 1985 the eligibility date as the date of their promotion to the post of Executive Engineer instead of January 21 1986 when they were actually promoted
The Tribunal by its order dated June 6 1986 granted the relief asked for by Kamlesh Baboo and VK Bhardwaj in the following terms In view of the above discussion we direct that the applicant who was promoted as Executive Engineer from 2111986 vide Office Order dated 2011986 and 251986 shall be continued as Executive Engineer even if the approval of the UPSC is not received within six months from the date of his promotion
For the purposes of seniority the applicant shall be considered from the date when he became eligible
The promotion of the applicant as Executive Engineer shall however be subject to the approval by the UPSC and without prejudice to the decision of the competent court in the matter of seniority which is in dispute
 These two appeals by the Chandigarh Administration are against the order of the Tribunal
Kamlesh Baboo joined service as Section Officer under the Chandigarh Administration on March 8 1971
He was promoted to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer on December 29 1976 and was confirmed as such on August 13 1985
The service particulars of VK Bhardwaj are identical
The conditions of service of the respondents are governed by the Rules
Rules 6b and 8 134891011 which are relevant are reproduced hereunder 6 b in the case of an appointment by promotion from Class 11 Service has 8 years completed service in that class and has passed the departmental examination as provided in rule 15 81 A committee consisting of the Chairman of the Public 124 Service Commission or where the Chairman is unable to attend any other member of the Commission representing it the Secretary PWD Buildings and Roads Branch and the Chief Engineers Punjab PWD Buildings and Roads Branch shall be constituted
3The Committee shall meet at intervals ordinarily not exceeding one year and consider the cases of all eligible officers for promotion to the senior scale of the Service as on the first day of January of that year
4The Committee shall prepare a list of officers suitable for promotion to the senior scale of the Service
The selection for inclusion in such list shall be based on merit and suitability in all respects with due regard to seniority
8The fist prepared or revised in accordance with subrules 4 5 and 6 shall then be forwarded to the Commission by Government along with i the records of all officers included in the list ii records of all officers proposed to be superseded as a result of the recommendations made by the Committee iiithe reasons if any recorded by the Committee for the proposed supersession of any officer iv the observations if any of the State Government on the recommendation of the Committee
9 The Commission shall consider the list prepared by the Committee along with other documents received from the State Government andunless it considers any change necessary approve the list
10 If the Commission considers it necessary to make any changes in the list received from Government the Commission shall make the changes it proposes and forward the list it considers suitable to the State Government
125 11 Appointments to the Service shall be made by Government from this list in the order in which names have been placed by the Commission
 It is not disputed that the respondents in these two appeals completed eight years of service in Class 11 cadre by the end of December 1984 and as such they were eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on January 1 1985
The selection to the post of Executive Engineer was to be done by following the procedure laid down under Rule 8 of the Rules reproduced above
Rule 8 of the Rules envisages a Selection Committee presided over by ChairmanMember of the Public Service Commission
The Committee considers the cases of eligible officers on the basis of merit and suitability the list of the selected officers is sent to the Commission for final approval and thereafter the appointments are made out of the approved list in accordance with the merit assigned therein
It is thus obvious that eligibility under Rule 6b of the Rules by itself does not give a right to a member of Class II service to be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in Class I service
The promotion has to be made in accordance with the procedure laid down under Rule 8 of the Rules
No member of Class 11 service can claim promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on the ground of eligibility alone
Unless a Class 11 officer has been selected in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules he cannot be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer
The question of Assigning seniority in Class I service only arises after a Class 11 officer has been selected and appointed to the said service
The seniority in class I is determined under Rule 12 of the Rules keeping in view the date of appointment as a result of selection under Rule 8 of the Rules
Both the respondents in these appeals were appointed to the post of Executive Engineer as a result of selection held under Rule 8 of the Rules with effect from January 21 1986
Their seniority has to be determined in class I service keeping in view the date of their appointments as January 21 1986
The Tribunal grossly erred in directing the Chandigarh Administration to give seniority to the respondents from the date of their eligibility
The respondents can neither be given the date of appointment as January 1 1985 nor their seniority fixed from that date
The directions of the Tribunal in this respect are patently violative of the Rules and cannot be sustained
Even otherwise both Kamlesh Baboo and VK Bhardwaj were working as 126 Sub Divisional Engineer on January 1 1985 and as such treating them to have been appointed to Class I service from that date and giving them benefit towards seniority on that basis would be wholly erroneous
The question as to whether the deputationists from Punjab and Haryana should be permitted to continue to serve the Chandigarh Administration has no relevance to the controversy involved in these appeals
That is a matter of policy between the States of Punjab Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh
The Tribunal was wholly unjustified in seeking support from the non existent fact that because of the presence of many deputationists the respondents in these appeals were not being considered for promotion
As a matter of fact the respondents got their promotion at the earliest possible opportunity
They became eligible on January 1 1985 and thereafter within a period of one year the procedure under Rule 8 was completed and they were promoted with effect from January 21 1986
We allow the appeals set aside the order of the Tribunal dated June 6 1986 and dismiss the applications filed by respondents Kamlesh Baboo and VK Bhardwaj before the Tribunal
No costs
VPR Appeals allowed


Summary:
The appellant retired in 1977 after putting in 23 years of service
But he was not given pension on the ground that throughout his service he was working on officiating basis and was never appointed substantively to any of the posts held by him
The appellant challenged the denial of pension to him before the Central Administrative Tribunal
The Tribunal held that since the appellant retired from service without holding lien on any substantive post he was not entitled to pension under Rule 13 of the Central Services Pension Rules 1972
The application of the appellant was disposed of ex parte by the Tribunal and his application for restoration and hearing was also rejected
Against these orders of the Tribunal appellant preferred the present appeals
The Respondents contested the appeals on the ground that the Departmental Promotion Committee did not recommend the appellant s confirmation since two departmental enquiries were initiated against him resulting in deduction of Rs 4000 from his gratuity by way of punishment
Allowing the appeals this Court HELD 1
Admittedly the findings in the two enquiries were never communicated to the appellant during the period of his service
Those were served on him only after retirement The question of his confirmation which was due in the year 1967 could not have been linked with the enquiries which were initiated at a much later stage
The Departmental Promotion Commit60 61 tee should have considered the appellant for confirmation on the basis of the record of the appellant as existed in the year 19671968
There is no material on record to show that the service record of the appellant prior to 1970 was adverse in any manner
Even the Departmental Promotion Com mittee found the confidential reports of the appellant for the last three years as good
On the availability of a permanent post of Chief of Police on June 14 1967 the appellant was entitled to be confirmed against the said post
It was wholly arbitrary on the part of the respondents to have deferred the question of confirmation of the appellant on the ground that there were no Recruitment Rules
The appellant having served the respondents for about thirteen years on June 14 1967 when the post of Chief of Police was made permanent and there being nothing adverse against him at that point of time he was entitled to be confirmed in the said post
In that view of the matter the appellant was a confirmed employee when he retired from service on July 311977
63D G 2
The respondents are directed to treat the appellant as having been retired as a confirmed employee and fix his pension and other post retiral benefits on that basis
The respondents are further directed to complete the pension case of the appellant within three months and pay him all the arrears of the pension within two months thereafter alongwith 12 interest on the said arrears
63H 64A