DEWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO writ petitions bearing CWP No. 21581 of 2010 (Dewan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others) and CWP No. 1465 of 2011 (Major Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others), are being decided together, because both are based on similar set of facts and identical issues are raised for consideration. For the facility of reference facts are being culled out from CWP No. 21581 of 2010.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner joined as Patwari in the respondent -department on 9.6.1978. He was promoted as Kanungo on 10.5.1994. Dissatisfied, petitioner moved a representation, which was accepted by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) vide order dated 11.3.1998 (Annexure P -1) and he was granted promotion to the post of Kanungo w.e.f. 6.9.1993 instead of 3.5.1994. However, still not satisfied, petitioner further represented and finally, the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), passed an order dated 31.3.2000 (Annexure P -4), reconsidering his earlier order dated 11.3.1998 and petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Kanungo w.e.f. 4.10.1989 and promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar w.e.f. 8.11.1993. Order dated 31.3.2000 came to be challenged by Harvinder Singh and others before this Court by way of CWP No. 5630 of 2000 wherein a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 28.5.2000, issued notice of motion and stayed operation of the abovesaid order dated 31.3.2000, whereby benefit of retrospective promotion was given to the petitioner. After reconsideration of the entire matter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide order dated 22.4.2010 (Annexure P -7), as to why the abovesaid promotions granted to him be not withdrawn, because he misled the authorities by concealing true facts, misrepresenting his case. Petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice vide Annexure P -8 dated 3.5.2010. After considering the reply filed by the petitioner and careful examination of the relevant official record, competent authority came to the conclusion that promotions granted to the petitioner were contrary to the record, because the petitioner was not eligible for the said promotions from the dates he was granted these promotions. This order came to be passed on 12.7.2010 (Annexure P -9), which has been impugned by the petitioner by way of present writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner raised twins arguments. His first argument was that once the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) has granted promotions to the petitioner, by granting him relaxation from passing the departmental examination, for the purpose of promotion to the post of Kanungo, there was no illegality in the order dated 31.3.2000 and the same deserves to be restored. The second argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that since his juniors were promoted earlier than him, he was rightly granted promotion with retrospective effect from the date his juniors were promoted. He places reliance on the facts and figures pointed out in para 6 and 7 of the order dated 31.3.2000 (Annexure P -4) to substantiate his arguments. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned order, by allowing present writ petition.