S. MOHINDERJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner impugns the order dated 28.5.1992 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No. 1, whereby the petitioner was sought to be reverted from the post of District Treasury Officer to that of Treasury Officer. Facts first.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was arbitrary, as well as discriminatory on the face of it. Petitioner was identically placed with S/Sh. J.S. Mastana and P.L. Puri. When the cases of S/Sh. J.S. Mastana and P.L. Puri, as well as that of the petitioner were not approved for promotion by the Punjab Public Service Commission, the respondents again sent the cases of S/Sh. J.S. Mastana and P.L. Puri, but the case of the petitioner was not sent, thereby treating the petitioner in discriminatory manner. To substantiate his contention in this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order dated 5.3.1991 (Annexure P-10), order dated 26.5.1991 (Annexure P-11) and also the order dated 14.11.1991 (Annexure P-12). He further submits that had the case of the petitioner been also sent again to the Punjab Public Service Commission alongwith his entire service record, there would have been no scope for passing of the impugned order, because the petitioner was enjoying more than 70% good record which was sufficient to meet the criteria for promotion. At that point of time, petitioner was having 'good' or 'very good' entries in his Annual Confidential Reports for the preceding five years. He next contended that despite the stay of reversion having been granted by this court, vide order dated 7.8.1992, when the petitioner was working as District Treasury Officer, he retired as Treasury Officer and not as District Treasury Officer. He was also granted the pension for the post of Treasury Officer instead of the post of District Treasury Officer. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurjit Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab and another, 1975 AIR(SC) 1915and the judgement dated 13.10.2011 passed by this court in CWP No. 1697 of 1993 (P.L. Puri v. State of Punjab and another). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgement in P.L. Puri's case . Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the present writ petition with all consequential benefits.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned order was passed because the promotion of the petitioner was not approved by the Punjab Public Service Commission, as the petitioner was not found enjoying good service record. Once the promotion of the petitioner was not approved by the Punjab Public Service Commission, respondent No. 1 was left with no other option, except to pass the impugned order of reversion. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition.