The appellant was employed as Assistant Registrar of this Court and vide order dated 30.11.2002 he retired from his service. Prior to his retirement the appellant applied on 08.06.2000 for the grant of move-over to him from BPS.17 to BPS.18. The then Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 17.07.2000 'granted the move-over to the appellant. The Registrar of this Court then submitted a report dated 29.07.2000 before the then Hon'ble Chief Justice that there is a special report touching the integrity of the appellant existing in the service record which was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 17.07.2000 when the move-over was granted to the appellant. The Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 31.07.2000 suspended the operation of the grant of move-over to the appellant till the final decision of the representation addressed by the appellant against the recording of special report touching his integrity. It is a matter of record stated by the learned Assistant Advocate General that the representation addressed by the appellant against the recording of the special report was later on allowed by the Hon`ble/Chief Justice vide order dated 05.06.2003. In the meanwhile, on account of his retirement dated 30.11.2002, the final notification regarding the granting of move-over to the appellant was not issued. The appellant moved an application dated 08.10.2008 for the redress of his grievance upon which he received an intimation that the move-over has been declined because he has already been retired. This declining of the grant of move-over to the appellant was also based upon the opinion of the Advocate General sought by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice from the office of the Registrar/Advocate General. This service appeal has been directed against the declining of the move-over to the appellant.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that once a move-over is granted to any employee by the then HoN'ble Chief Justice, merely because of the suspension of the operation of granting the move-over pending decision of the representation, the right of the appellant for the grant of move-over cannot be vanished away in tow. The interim order of pending the grant of move-over was only a conditional one and was further subjected to the final decision of the representation which admittedly resulted into the acceptance of the representation of the appellant and the special report about his integrity later on ceased to have any existence in the eye of law.
3. Learned Assistant Advocate General contends that in view of the above the appellant is entitled to retain the grant of move-over originally allowed to him by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 17.07.2000. The learned Assistant Advocate General has however raised the point that Govt. Of Punjab had dis-continued the granting of move-over w.e.f. 22.10.2001. Learned AAG submits that the cases in which the grant of move-over was permissible under this changed law was only of those employees to whom the right to have the move-over accrued prior to the cut off date 01.12,2001 which is mentioned in the notification dated 22.10.2001. Elaborating the point, the learned Assistant Advocate General argued that on account of the suspension of the order granting of move-over by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice it cannot be said that the right to seek the move-over accrued to the appellant prior to the cut off date.
4. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. There is no doubt as per record available in the Court that the appellant was granted a move- over by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice on 17.07.2000. On 29.07.2000 a summary was submitted by the then Registrar that there is some report touching the integrity of the appellant in his service record which was later on brought to the notice of the then Hon'ble Chief Justice. A representation against the said recording of special report qua the integrity of The appellant was also detected later on to be then pending. On account' of the said summary the Hon'ble Chief Justice recorded that the grant of move-over to the appellant shall remain pending till the final decision upon his representation. The representation addressed by the appellant against the recording of the adverse summary was later on accepted by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice and the said summary.
Therefore. Ceased to have any effect on the service record of the appellant. So far as the service record of the appellant is concerned, the right of the appellant to the move-over had already accrued to him on 17.07.2000 by the order passed by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice and merely because the operation of the said move-over granting order was suspended on 31.07.2000 by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice upon the summary of the then Registrar, does not mean that the order granting of move-over has been recalled. It is also an admitted fact that the representation of the appellant was accepted against the recording of special report qua his integrity, therefore, nothing prevented the appellant to seek the implementation of the order dated 17.07.2000 passed by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice. No other point has been argued by the parties.
6. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and the move-over granted to the appellant by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 17.07.2000 is directed to be impleaded with all consequential relief. .