STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Vs. GURNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letter Patent Appeal against the judgment of learned Single Judge, dated 25th September, 1987, passed in CWP No. 1804 of 1988.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Gurnam Singh Brar, writ petitioner (now respondent) had joined the Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch), Punjab, on 27th December, 1961, as a Sectional Officer. He was confirmed in the said post vide order dated 17th February, 1981. Shri Sampuran Singh had joined the Department as Sectional Officer on 7th November, 1962 and thus he was admittedly junior to the writ-petitioner.

(3.) The case put forth by the writ-petition was that Sampuran Singh who was junior to him, was promoted as Sub Divisional Officer on 21st August, 1974, ignoring the claim of the petitioner, Shri Sampuran Singh had been promoted as Sub Divisional Officer on the plea that he had served the Nation during the Indo-Pak war of 1971 while posted in the border areas. It was further alleged that Sarvshri Gurdev Singh Parmar and Darshan Kumar Kochar who were promoted as officiating Sub Divisional Engineers on account of good work done by them during 1975 floods, were also junior to the writ-petitioner as Sectional Officers. It was further averred by the writ-petitioner, which was not denied by the respondents, that during 1971 war, he was also posted in the Jalalabad sector of the Indo-Pak border and during the war and floods of 1975, the petitioner had rendered meritorious services at a great risk to his personal safety. His services had been highly appreciated by the Civilian and the Army Authorities. The Commanding Officer of the regiment which had been deployed in that area, had also highly commended the work of the petitioner in plugging a breach in the Bikaner canal, thus facilitating the work of defence authorities. When the petitioner was ignored, he filed a representation, but according to the averments made by the petitioner, he did not hear anything about his representation, which led to the filing of the writ petition in the year 1984. The case put forth by the respondent-State (now appellant) in the written statement was that the petitioner had not been promoted because (i) his name had not been recommended by the concerned Superintending Engineer, and (ii) he did not have the requisite qualifications of 10 years' service, which was a requirement under Rule 11.4 of the Manual of Administration governing the service of the petitioner in the Irrigation Department. The State also resisted the claim of the petitioner on the ground of laches.