FAQIR CHAND CHAWLA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent -State to grant him notional promotion on the post of Sub Divisional Engineer and to release his revised consequential benefits, i.e., arrears of revised pay, arrears of revised pensionary benefits etc. as a consequence of recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 26.09.2007 (Annexure P -2), which recommended the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer, which is prior to the date of his retirement, i.e., 30.09.2007. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Sectional Officer in July, 1971 in the Department of Water Supply and Sanitation. The said post of Sectional Officer was re -designated as Junior Engineer and thereafter as Assistant Engineer. The petitioner was holding the additional charge of Sub Divisional Engineer in the pay scale of Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 22.09.2005 in his own pay scale of Assistant Engineer. Government of Punjab amended the PWD (Public Health) Rules, 1967 (for short "1967 Rules") vide Engineers Group 'A' Service Rules, 2007, which were made applicable w.e.f. 19.06.2007, according to which promotional quota to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer was raised to 25% from 20% as per 1967 Rules. Out of these posts of promotional quota, 50% posts were meant for diploma holders, who were promoted to the posts of Sub Divisional Engineers. The meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee, as per the amended Rules, was held on 26.09.2007 for promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer, in which the name of the petitioner was also considered. His name was recommended to be promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer and figured at Sr. No. 12 of the list of the recommended candidates. Till 30.09.2007, when the petitioner retired from service, no promotion orders were passed. Subsequently, orders of promotion were passed on 10.10.2007 on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee made in meeting dated 26.09.2007, wherein the name of the petitioner did not figure.

(2.) PETITIONER submitted a representation on 16.10.2007 to the respondent to promote him notionally as Sub Divisional Engineer from the date of recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee. Qua his promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer, a reminder dated 27.12.2007 was also submitted by the petitioner.

(3.) IT is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been deprived of his rightful claim by the respondent for no fault of his, specially when post against the quota as per the statutory rules for promotion was available, against which the petitioner was entitled to be promoted. For the inaction on the part of the respondent, which has resulted in the retirement of the petitioner on 30.09.2007, petitioner cannot be denied his right. Promotion should have been given effect to from the date of the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee and merely because the competent authority has approved the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee subsequent to the retirement of the petitioner and thereafter the promotion orders have been passed of the persons who were in service cannot be a ground for depriving the petitioner his right of promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has referred to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal and another v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, : 2007 (1) S.C.T. 393 : : (2007) 1 SCC 683, wherein it has been observed that on account of the delay in making recommendations by the competent authority for promotion of the employee, the same cannot be acted to the prejudice of the employee and the benefit should be granted to the employee concerned. On this basis, prayer has been made for allowing the present writ petition and granting writ of mandamus as prayed for.