JUDGMENT S.C. AGRAWAL. J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal) dated June 20, 1988. 2. The facts, briefly stated are that the appellant joined as a clerk on temporary capacity in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana on April 28, 1952. He was confirmed on the said post of clerk on September 30, 1960. Shortly after the reorganisation of Punjab and the constitution of the Union Territory of Chandigarh, the appellant was appointed as a clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh in the Union Territory of Chandigarh on December 1, 1966. The said appointment of the appellant was by way of deputation. While he was on deputation, one post of Assistant was crested in the office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies at Chandigarh. The appellant was promoted as Assistant in the office of the Registrar of I Cooperative Societies, in officiating capacity, on December 30, 1967. While the appellant was working as Assistant in the office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies at Chandigarh an order dated August 20, 1982 was passed whereby A.K. Vats, respondent 4 and Parmanand, respondent 5, who were working as assistants in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh, were granted senior scale of Rs 600-1120 as assistant with retrospective effect from September 14, 1978 and July 17, 1980, respectively. 3. The appellant feeling aggrieved by the said order filed a civil suit for a declaration that the order dated August 20, 1982 was illegal, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice as much as by the said order the claim of the appellant to the said post/scale, by virtue of his seniority, had been ignored. On the establishment of the tribunal, the said suit was transferred to the tribunal and it was disposed of by the tribunal by the judgment dated June 20. 1988. The tribunal has found that the cadres of assistants in the office of the Deputy Commissioner. Chandigarh and in the Cooperative Department were separate and distinct cadres and that the appellant belonged to the cadre of the Cooperative Department and he could not claim promotion to the senior scale post of assistant in the cadre of assistants in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh. 4. Chandigarh and in the Cooperative Department were separate and distinct cadres and that the appellant belonged to the cadre of the Cooperative Department and he could not claim promotion to the senior scale post of assistant in the cadre of assistants in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment of the tribunal mainly on the ground that by order dated November 6, 1975, the appellant had been confirmed on the post of clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh, with effect from June 20, 1975. According to the learned counsel this would indicate that the appellant belonged to the cadre in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh and he was entitled to be considered for grant of senior scale of assistants and further promotions in the said office before respondents 4 and 5 because the appellant was senior to the said respondents. 5. In our view, the said order dated November 6, 1975 does not help the appellant. The appellant was already a permanent clerk at the time of the reorganisation of the State of Punjab. Subsequent to such reorganisation, he was posted in the Union Territory of Chandigarh, as a clerk in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh. The said posting was by way of deputation. Since the appellant was already a permanent clerk, there was no question of his being again confirmed on the post of clerk. All that has happened is that by virtue of the order dated November 6, 1975, he was permanently absorbed in the services of Union Territory of Chandigarh with effect from June 17, 1975 and with effect from that date his lien on the permanent post of clerk in the Punjab Government came to an end. At the time of his absorption in the service of the Union Territory of Chandigarh on June 17, 1975 the appellant was working as assistant in the Cooperative Department. Since the cadre of assistants in the Cooperative Department was a separate cadre, the appellant could look forward for further promotion in the Cooperative Department only and he cannot claim that he should be considered for the post of senior scale of assistant that became available in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh after his absorption on June 17, 1975. The appellant, having opted for promotion to the post of assistant in the Cooperative Department, severed his links from the office of the Deputy Commissioner. Chandigarh. There can be no question of his having any lien in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh, because during the period from December 1, 1966 to December 30, 1967, when the appellant was working in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh, he was having his lien on the permanent post of clerk in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana in Punjab and long before the termination of the said lien on June 17, 1975 he had moved to the Cooperative Department. The claim of the appellant was, in our view, rightly rejected by the tribunal. 6. The appeal, therefore, fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. For Citation: 1995 Supp (4) SCC 451 Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.