JUDGMENT :

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. The appellant/plaintiff has filed the instant Regular Second Appeal challenging the judgments and decrees dated 06.11.1995 and 28.01.1998, passed by the learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court respectively, whereby the suit and the first appeal filed by the plaintiff have been dismissed.

2. Parties to the lis hereinafter shall be referred to by their original position before the learned Trial Court.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff was working as Assistant/Inspector under the Punjab Government since 05.12.1973, with the Director, Local Government, Punjab, being his appointing and punishing authority. He was deputed to various Municipal Committees, where his salary was paid from municipal funds under the directions of the Director, Local Government, Punjab, Chandigarh. In the year 1985, the plaintiff applied through proper channel for the post of Additional District Attorney Grade-II and was duly selected, vide order dated 25.05.1985 issued by the Director, Prosecution and Litigation Department, Punjab, Chandigarh. Upon being relieved from his previous department, he joined the post of Additional District Attorney Grade-II. At the time of his relieving, the plaintiff requested that his lien on the post of Inspector be retained. Subsequently, the plaintiff submitted representations seeking counting of the service rendered by him as Inspector in the Punjab Municipal Service, which were declined by the Director, Prosecution and Litigation Department. An appeal filed by the plaintiff before the Secretary to the Government of Punjab was also dismissed. The plaintiff has averred that the orders rejecting his claim and the appellate order are illegal, arbitrary, and void, as he is entitled to the benefit of the relevant provisions of the Punjab Civil Services Rules as well as Articles 14 and 311 of the Constitution of India. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

“1. Whether the past service of the plaintiff, w.e.f. 13.12.1978 to 6.6.1985, is to be counted towards pension and other benefits etc.? OPP.

2. Whether the order dated 3.7.92 is null and void? OPP.

3. Whether the rule 11.3 and other of C.S.R. do not apply to the plaintiff? OPD.

4. Relief.”

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff contends that the impugned judgments and decrees are unsustainable in law. It is argued that the plaintiff was duly selected as Additional District Attorney Grade-II through a regular selection process and was relieved by the competent authority. The plaintiff had sought protection of lien over his previous post in accordance with the Civil Service Rules, which permit retention of lien. Since the plaintiff was serving in the Municipal Committee and was selected thorough a proper selection committee, therefore, the earlier service rendered by him is liable to be counted towards pensionary benefits.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel contends that the plaintiff, after his appointment as Additional District Attorney Grade-II, became a member of a separate cadre governed by distinct service rules, and therefore, the services rendered by him in the Municipal Committees cannot be counted for seniority and other benefits. It was argued that no rule confers any right to retain lien or claim past service benefits, and the rejection of the plaintiff's representations was legal and justified.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. It appears that during the course of hearing before the learned Trial Court, the plaintiff has made claim for counting of the earlier service only for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

8. The question of law which arises for determination in the present appeal is as to whether the service rendered by the appellant/plaintiff from 13.12.1978 to 06.06.1985 while he was working as Inspector in the Municipal Committee, is countable for the purpose of pensionary benefits or not?

9. The learned Tria