ANAND PARKASH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the notice dated 31.1.1994 (Annexure P-5) and the order dated 14.6.1994 (Annexure P-7) by which the petitioner has been informed that his date of promotion as Chief Engineer will remain 24.2.1992. The petitioner also seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to grant the pay-scale of Chief Engineer w.e.f. 18.7.1991 together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the amounts that may become due.

(2.) The petitioner was initially recruited as a Temporary Engineer with the erstwhile State of Punjab on 4.12.1957. On re-organisation of the State, his services were permanently allocated to the successor State of Punjab. In due course of time, he was promoted as Executive Engineer on 21.5.1970/8.12.1970 and as Superintending Engineer on 14.5.1985. The petitioner claims that it has been a normal practice in the respondent-department to grant promotion by way of Current Duty Charge, even against clear vacancy. Later on, the period is regularised by ante-dated promotion from the earlier due date. He has quoted instance of one G.R. Kalra who was initially appointed to the post of Chief Engineer on 1.5.1988 by giving him Current Duty Charge. He was regularly promoted by order dated 5.8.1989 and was given promotion w.e.f. 1.5.1988. Copy of this order is attached as Annexure P-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner further states that in a similar manner, he was initially given Current Duty Charge on the post of Chief Engineer, even though a clear vacancy had existed, by order dated 16.7.1991 (Annexure P-2). By order dated 17.2.1992, his promotion was regularised, retrospectively w.e.f. 18.7.1991 i.e. from the date he had taken Current Duty Charge (Annexure P-3). Although the petitioner is entitled to the pay-scale of Chief Engineer, he was wrongly placed in the scale of Rs. 5900-200-6700 i.e. pay-scale of Superintending Engineer. Subsequently, by order dated 11.5.1992, the date of promotion of the petitioner had been changed to 24.2.1992. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing CWP No. 7951 of 1993. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 5.11.1993. The order dated 24.2.1992 was quashed. The respondents were given liberty to pass fresh order after complying with principles of natural justice. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondents issued a show-casue notice to the petitioner on 3.1.1994. It was mentioned in the show-cause notice that in the order of promotion dated 24.2.1992, it was wrongly mentioned by mistake that he had been regularly promoted as Chief Engineer from the date he took Current Duty Charge on the post of Chief Engineer i.e. 18.7.1991. The petitioner submitted reply to the show-cause notice and stated that the original order of promotion dated 18.7.1991 is correct. He is, therefore, entitled to the pay and pension with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. The explanation of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that the petitioner has failed to submit any legal ground or rules in support of his claim. It has also been mentioned that in similar cases of Avtar Singh, Tarlochan Singh, R.L. Kukkar and G.M. Wadhwa, promotions were not granted from the previous date when they were entrusted the Current Duty Charge on the post of Chief Engineer.

(3.) The respondent has filed a written statement in which it is stated that G.R. Kalra was not promoted as Chief Engineer retrospectively, as stated by the petitioner. The order of promotion was not issued alongwith the other Superintending Engineers, who had been promoted as Chief Engineer w.e.f 1.5.1988, as there was some point raised by the Competent Authority about the seniority of G.R. Kalra. Therefore, the case was referred to the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. Subsequently, the promotion of G.R. Kalra was approved from the same date i.e. 1.5.1988. Rest of the averments made by the petitioner are not denied. It is, however, maintained that the action which has been taken by the respondent in changing the date of promotion of the petitioner is in accordance with law and the applicable rules.