G.B. Pattanaik and; B.N. Agrawal, JJ.
1. The Union Territory of Chandigarh is in appeal against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 7-12-1995 in OA No. 562 of 1994. The said application had been filed before the Tribunal by the respondent Avtar Singh, who is still working as a Social Education and Panchayat Officer, Chandigarh. The grievance of the respondent before the Tribunal was that he has been continuing as such Panchayat Officer and is not being considered for promotion to the post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer though in accordance with the Rules framed under the Panchayati Act he was entitled to be considered for promotion and if found suitable is entitled to be promoted to the post in question. Chandigarh Administration while filing their objections before the Tribunal contended therein that there is no sanctioned post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer in the Rural Development Department of Chandigarh Administration, and as such the contention of the applicant before the Tribunal is futile. The further contention of Chandigarh Administration was that the notified area of Chandigarh having been notified as a tehsil under the provisions of the 1961 Act, a full-time executive officer for the Panchayat Samiti is available and it is not necessary to have a Block Development Officer. The Tribunal on the basis of the material produced before it came to the conclusion that the contention of the Administration that there does not exist any post of Block Development Officer is incorrect and in fact there is a sanctioned post of Block Development Officer. The Tribunal also further came to the conclusion that the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 applies to the Union Territory of Chandigarh and as such the post of Block Development Officer is required to be created and filled up on a whole-time basis. With this conclusion, the Tribunal having directed that the respondent Avtar Singh be promoted to the post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, if found suitable, the Administration is in appeal.
2. Ms Kamini Jaiswal appearing for the appellants contended that the conclusion of the Tribunal in para 9 to the effect that the stand taken by the respondent officials that there is no sanctioned post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer in the Rural Development Department has no substance, is incorrect and is based on misreading of the different letters issued from time to time by Chandigarh Administration. She further contended that the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 has no application and that being the position and Chandigarh having been declared as a tehsil it is open to the Administration not to create any post of Block Development Officer. She further argued that in any view of the matter, the direction of the Tribunal to promote the respondent to the post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as an employee under Article 16 of the Constitution has merely a right of consideration and the Court cannot be the appointing authority.
3. Mr P.C. Jain, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 have been made applicable to Chandigarh by virtue of the notification issued by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. Accordingly, under the said Act, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer performs several duties and it would, therefore, be obligatory for the Administration to create and fill up the said post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer. Mr Jain also fairly stated that what the respondent claims is a right of consideration for the post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer and though the Tribunal has used the expression “appoint” but the additional expression “if otherwise found suitable” is taken into consideration that it tantamounts to conferring right of consideration alone.
4. In view of the rival stand, the first question that arises for consideration is whether the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 apply to Chandigarh. Before us the notification dated 23-4-1994 which had been published in the Extraordinary Gazette dated 23-4-1994 was produced which unequivocally indicates that the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 has extended the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. In view of the aforesaid notification, it is absolutely clear that the aforesaid Act of 1994 does apply to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The Act as well as Rules made thereunder further make it clear that the Block Development and Panchayat Officer plays an important role in the administration of the Panchayati Raj. It is no doubt true that the conclusion of the Tribunal on the basis of the different letters of the Government to the effect that there still exists a sanctioned post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer may not be correct, inasmuch as the letter referred to by the Tribunal only indicates that such post had been annually created from time to time up to the year 1972 and not thereafter. But once the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 apply to the Union Territory of Chandigarh and in view of the duties of Block Development and Panchayat Officer required to be performed under the said Act, in our considered opinion creation of the post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer for the Union Territory of Chandigarh is a must. We are aware of the legal position that creation or abolition of post is a policy decision of the Government with which the court usually does not interfere but having regard to the pattern or devolution of power and decentralisation of power as well as constitutional mandate engrafted in Articles 243 to 243-O and bearing in mind the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the Rules made thereunder, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the appropriate authority should create the post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer which is a statutory obligation of the authority, so that the incumbent of the said post would discharge his statutory duties as engrafted in the Act and the Rules made thereunder. In the aforesaid premises, we would call upon the appropriate authority for creation of such post within a period of three months from today and on such creation, the respondent Avtar Singh may be considered for promotion to the said post within two months of the creation of that post and finally orders be passed thereunder. It may be borne in mind that stagnation in service for an unduly long period without having an avenue for promotion is not in the interest of administration.
5. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.