Full Judgment
CWP No.17199 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH339 CWP No.17199 of 1991 Date of Decision : January 29, 2014 Daya Ram ...PETITIONER versus State of Haryana and another ....RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr.Naveen Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the State.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
(ORAL) Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the orders dated 29.09.1986 (Annexure P-2).vide which the objections submitted by the petitioner to the provisional seniority list have been rejected, in which it was mentioned that his actual date of promotion is 18.01.1972 but assumed date of promotion would be 22.12.1969 whereas the petitioner is seeking promotion w.e.f.06.07.1959, the date his junior Sh.
Madan Lal was promoted as an Assistant.
Challenge is also posed to the order dated 17.12.1986 (Annexure P- Prerna datta 3/1).vide which the petitioner has been granted the assumed date of 2014.02.03 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.17199 of 1991 2 promotion as Head Assistant w.e.f.01.03.1976 whereas he claims promotion w.e.f.27.01.1972, the date when his junior Sh.
Madan Lal was promoted, order dated 17.12.1986 (Annexure P-3/2).vide which the petitioner has not been promoted as a Superintendent and he claimed promotion to the said post w.e.f.01.07.1975 again on the ground that his junior Sh.
Madan Lal was promoted to the said post, order dated 21.05.1987 (Annexure P-4/1).vide which the petitioner has been promoted on an assumed date as Election Tehsildar w.e.f.01.05.1977.
Challenge is also posed to the order dated 20.05.1987 (Annexure 4/2).whereby the petitioner has been granted the assumed date of promotion as Assistant Chief Electoral Officer w.e.f.06.05.1980 whereas he is claiming promotion w.e.f.01.03.1979, the date Sh.
Madan Lal was granted the said promotion.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was promoted on stop-gap arrangement to the post of Assistant w.e.f.06.01.1959 and he continued as such till 30.04.1959 against a short term vacancy and thereafter was reverted to the post of Clerk w.e.f.01.05.1959.
Thereafter, the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant on regular basis was to be considered but he was not granted promotion whereas his immediate junior Sh.
Madan Lal was promoted as an Assistant vide order dated 06.07.1959.
Petitioner, thereafter, had approached the respondents for the grant of promotion and other consequential benefits, which were rejected resulting in the challenge to the said orders through the present writ petition.
Prerna datta 2014.02.03 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.17199 of 1991 3 Petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus promoting the petitioner as an Assistant w.e.f.01.05.1959, as Head Assistant w.e.f.27.01.1972, as Superintendent w.e.f.01.07.1975, Assistant Chief Electoral Officer w.e.f.01.03.1979, the dates on which his immediate junior Sh.
Madan Lal was promoted along with the consequential benefits.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been denied promotion against the instructions issued by the respondents.
The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on 01.02.1950 whereas Sh.
Madan Lal was appointed on the same post on 01.03.1950 and, therefore, was senior to him.
It was primarily the contention of the petitioner that he had not passed the Assistant Grade examination and, therefore, he was not promoted to the said post.
However, subsequently the said Assistant Grade examination was waived off and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner should have been considered by the respondents afresh.
Accordingly, the claim was considered but he was not granted the said benefit.
In the reply, which has been filed by the respondents, it was stated that the claim of the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Assistant but he was not found suitable and eligible for promotion on the basis of the criteria of seniority-cum- merit as laid down in the Government Instructions of the year 1956.
According to the said instructions, an official, in order to being suitable for promotion, must have 50% 'Good' Annual Confidential Prerna datta Reports at his credit.
Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner 2014.02.03 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.17199 of 1991 4 were examined to adjudge his eligibility for promotion on 06.07.1959, the date on which his immediate junior Sh.
Madan Lal was promoted as Assistant.
It was found that at that time, the petitioner had only 4 'Good' reports at his credit out of 10 reports and for the 4 years i.e.1952-53, 1955-56, 1957-58 and 1958-59, there were adveRs.remarks recorded therein.
Since the petitioner did not have 50% 'Good' reports, the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant was rejected.
Challenge has also been sought to be objected to on the ground that the petitioner has approached this Court after an inordinate delay of 32 years for claiming the benefit in the present writ petition, which is not permissible.
In the light of the stand, which has been taken by the respondents in para-13 of the written statement, the following order was passed by this Court on 16.01.2014: “ It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to promotion to the post of Assistant from 06.07.1959, the date his junior Madan Lal was promoted.
He contends that the petitioner, in the light of the instructions dated 01.06.1983 (Annexure P-1).was entitled to promotion as an Assistant from the date he became eligible and in any case from the date his junior has been promoted.
Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has referred to the reply filed by the respondents in paras 12 Prerna datta and 13 to contend that the claim of the petitioner for 2014.02.03 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.17199 of 1991 5 promotion to the post of Assistant was duly considered as the criteria for promotion is seniority-cum-merit on 06.07.1959 on the date when his immediate junior Madan Lal was promoted as Assistant.
It was found at that time that the petitioner had only 4 good reports to his credit out of 10 reports.
The adveRs.remarks were found in the Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1952-53, 1955- 56, 1957-58 and 1958-59.
These are only 4 Annual Confidential Reports which have been referred to in the reply, which has been filed by the respondents.
Considering the facts as mentioned in para 13 also it appears that there are only 4 entries against the petitioner which would mean that there were six good entries in the last 10 yeaRs.Counsel for the respondents prays for an adjournment to produce the 10 Annual Confidential Reports, which were taken into consideration, of the petitioner while considering his claim for promotion.
List on 29.01.2014.”
.
In compliance with the said order, counsel for the respondents has been unable to produce the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner and stated that the same have been weeded out.
He, however, submits that as a matter of fact, only 9 years of the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner could have been taken into consideration.
Even if when the Annual Confidential Reports of Prerna datta the petitioner are taken into consideration, out of which, as per the 2014.02.03 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.17199 of 1991 6 reply filed by the respondents in para 13, there are only 4 adveRs.Annual Confidential Reports leaving the petitioner with 5 'Good' reports, which would fulfil the criteria laid down under the Government instructions of 1956, which require 50% 'Good' Annual Confidential Reports at the credit of the employee to be suitable for promotion.
The objection of delay by the respondents is totally unjustified as the petitioner is challenging the orders starting from 1986 and ending with the order passed in 1990 which is a sequence of orders passed by the respondents on considering the claim of the petitioner on various posts and some benefits have been granted to him at one or the other stage.
The writ petition has been filed on 19.11.1991.
There is thus no inordinate or unexplained delay which would be enough to deny the petitioner the benefit claimed by him in this writ petition.
In view of the above, the petitioner is entitled to the claim, as has been made in the present writ petition.
The writ petition is allowed.
Impugned orders dated 29.09.1986 (Annexures P-2, P-2/1).17.12.1986 (Annexures P-3/1, P- 3/2).21.05.1987 (Annexures P-4/1, P-4/2).15.10.1990 (Annexure P- 5) are hereby quashed.
A direction is issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the posts, as have been claimed by the petitioner in the present writ petition with effect from the date his junior Sh.
Madan Lal was promoted.
Petitioner shall not Prerna datta be entitled to the actual disbursement of financial benefits.
However, 2014.02.03 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.17199 of 1991 7 his notional pay and allowances shall be fixed and pension also fixed accordingly and thereafter arrears released to the petitioner 38 months prior to the filing of the writ petition.
The arrears be released to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) January 29, 2014 JUDGE pj Prerna datta 2014.02.03 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh