DALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing (a) of the order dated 30.3.2001 (Annexure P-8) whereby respondent No. 4 has been promoted on the post of Under Secretary; (b) the memo dated 4.9.2001 (Annexure P-10) rejecting the representation of the petitioner for being given promotion as Under- Secretary w.e.f. 1.12.1990. The petitioner also seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the Post of Under-Secretary w.e.f. 1.11.1990. The facts as pleaded by the parties may be briefly noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was working as Assistant in the Punjab Civil Secretariat w.e.f. 3.2.1960. By notification dated 5.2.1979, he was promoted as a Law Officer in the Local Govt. Department, Punjab in the pay scale of Rs. 400-25-500/30-800 w.e.f. 28.3.1978, till such date his services are needed or the post of Law Officer lasts whichever date is earlier. The promotion was made with the approval of Punjab Public Service Commission. On 27.7.1983, the petitioner was given promotion as Superintendent Grade II in the scale of Rs. 800-25-850-30-1000/40-1200/50-1400 plus special pay of Rs. 50/- p.m. w.e.f. 1.7.1983. In other words, he was promoted as Superintendent Grade-II from the date the official junior to him had been promoted. The pay of the petitioner was enhanced to the scale of Rs. 825-25-850-30-1000/40-1200/50-1400-60-1580 by order dated 20.9.1983 with immediate effect. The pay of the petitioner had been increased to put him in the scale which was available to Superintendent Grade-I in the Punjab Civil Secretariat. By notification dated 22.12.1988, the petitioner was granted proforma promotion as Superintendent Grade-I w.e.f. 25.9.1984. The petitioner had been promoted alongwith 24 other officials. His name figures at Sr. No. 22 of the Notification with an endorsement that he is working as a Law Officer in the Local Government Department. The petitioner was granted the proforma promotion as he held the lien in the Punjab Civil Secretariat. Soon thereafter, by notification dated 16.6.1989, the petitioner was appointed as Superintendent Grade-I (PSS-II) in the Punjab Civil Secretariat in the substantive permanent capacity w.e.f. 1.4.1998 vice Sher Singh Panwar, Superintendent Grade-I, retired. The petitioner retired on 31.7.1991. The service record of the petitioner throughout has been good and excellent. He has been issued many appreciation letters for outstanding work in handling successfully prestigious Court cases of the Local Government Department. The seniority list of Superintendent Grade-I (PSS II) of the Punjab Civil Secretariat was redetermined and circulated for implementation vide memo dated 30.6.2000. The seniority had been redetermined in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Ajit Singh Janjua-I & II. In the redetermined seniority list (Annexure P-7), the name of the petitioner figures at Sr. No. 92. The name of respondent No. 4 - Om Parkash Gupta figures at Sr. No. 96. After redetermination of the seniority, respondent No. 4 alongwith various other persons was given notional promotion on the post of Under-Secretary w.e.f. 1.11.1990 by order dated 3.3.2001 (Annexure P-8). Since the petitioner is senior to respondent No. 4, he was entitled to be considered for promotion on the post of Under-Secretary w.e.f. 1.11.1990. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 11.5.2001 complaining that he had not been sent the latest seniority list. He pointed out the facts as narrated above and claimed proforma promotion from the date respondent No. 4, his junior, had been promoted as Under-Secretary. The petitioner was asked to appear before the Deputy Secretary (Seniority) for proforma promotion w.e.f. 1.12.1990. However, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner by Memo dated 4.9.2001 (Annexure P-10). The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner never worked as Superintendent Grade-II and Grade-I. Even if the petitioner has been given the benefit of the judgment of counting his experience in the rank of Superintendent Grade-II and Grade-I with effect from the deemed date of promotion, he did not have the requisite experience of seven years for being promoted as Under-Secretary. The experience of seven years is required under Rule 6.1(b) of the Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Service Class-I) Rules 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Service Rules"). Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 24.10.2001 (Annexure P-11). The aforesaid representation filed by the petitioner has not been decided by the respondents.

(3.) Respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed written statement. It is admitted that the seniority list of Superintendent Grade-I was circulated vide letter dated 30.6.2000 and the petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 92 while Om Parkash Gupta (respondent No. 4) was shown at Sr. No. 96. It has also been stated that respondent No. 4, junior to the petitioner, was granted assumed date of promotion i.e. 1.11.1990, to the post of Under-Secretary in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Janjua's case. The claim of the petitioner is sought to be denied on the ground that he was given only proforma promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II and Superintendent Grade-I. He has never worked on these posts actually, and therefore, he does not have the necessary experience of seven years as required under Rule 6.1(b) of the rules for promotion on the post of Under-Secretary. He remained Law Officer in the Local Government Department w.e.f. 20.3.1978 till his retirement on superannuation by letter dated 31.7.1991. On the other hand, respondent No. 4 actually worked as Superintendent Grade-II and Superintendent Grade-I and (had) got seven years experience before he was promoted as Under- Secretary on 4.5.1992. Therefore, he has been given the assumed date of promotion as Under-Secretary on 1.11.1990. The petitioner has filed a replication reiterating the facts stated earlier.