TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. The material facts in brief are this. Both B.S. Bajwa and B.D. Gupta joined the Army and were granted Short Service Commission on 30th March. 1963 and 30th October, 1963 respectively when they students in the final year of the Engineering Decgree Course. B.S. Bajwa graduated thereafter in June, 1963 and B.D. Gupta graduated in 1964. On being released from the Army B.S. Bajwa jointed the PWD (B R) on 4.5.1971 and B.D. Gupta joined the same department on 12th May, 1972, There position in the gradation list was shown throughout with reference to these dates of joining the department. It is sufficient to state that throughout their career as Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer both B.S Bajwa and B.D. Gupta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed an even earlier date of appointment with reference to the date on which they were granted the Short Service Commission on 30th October, 1963. On the other hand, the grievance of D.P. Bajaj and Jagir Singh filed appeal as to grant of benefit of the date 6.4.1964 to B.S. Bajwa and B.D. Gupta because it affects their seniority in the cadre and would also adversely affect their prospects inspite of their earlier promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer. It is significant that the Division Bench in the LAP, while dealing with the question of laches in filing the writ petition, came to the following conclusion: It is not disputed that in the confirmation list of P.W.D. (B R) Branch published from tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition in the High Court itself. That apart that concession made on behalf of the State cannot bind D.P. Bajaj and Jagir Singh or anyone-else who would be adversely affected thereby. Those persons, therefore, have an independent right to assail that view taken by the Division Bench. It is with regard to this part of the judgment of which we say that even though the LPA is said to have been allowed but it has the effect and in reality of being dismissed because it who certain benefits to B.S. Bajwa and B.D. Gupta who were the respondents therein. Having heard both sides we are satisfied that the writ petition was wrongly entertained and allowed by the single Judge and, therefore, the judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
