DHARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were inducted into the service of the Public Works Department (B & R Branch) against the posts of Driver, Cleaner and Work Munshi. The details of the dates of appointment of the petitioners have been narrated in paragraph 2 of the instant writ petition. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, that all the petitioners have rendered long years of service against the posts on which they were appointed, and in some cases, extending upto 30 years, but have not earned a single promotion. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, relying on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar and Ors. vehemently contends, that atleast two avenues of promotion should be made available for every employee engaged in government service. In this behalf, learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following observations recorded by the Apex Court in Raghunath Prasad Singh's case (supra): Reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of public service. That generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service. In the absence of promotional prospects, the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly. We would, therefore, direct the State of Bihar to provide at least two promotional opportunities to the officers of the State Police in the wireless organisation. within six months from today by appropriate amendments of Rules. In case the State of Bihar fails to comply, with this direction, it should, within two months thereafter, give a fresh opportunity to personnel in the Police wireless organisation to exercise option to revert to the general cadre and that benefit should be extended to everyone in the wireless organisation.

(2.) The aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners has been opposed on behalf of the respondents on the basis of a notification dated 25.9.1998, by which the State government promulgated the Assured Career Progression Scheme. Under the aforesaid notification, the employees who are not promoted to the next higher level despite the lapse of 8/16/24/32 years of service, are entitled to the pay scale which is next higher in the hierarchy of pay scale or atleast one additional increment. Factual details in this behalf have been narrated in paragraph 3 of the written statement, which is being extracted hereunder: The contents of para 3 are totally incorrect and not based on facts being denied. The factual position is that the petitioners made legal representation to the respondents (Sr. No. 1 to 5) on 3.12.2002 refer Annexure P-1 in the writ petition. The annotated reply to the said legal notice was served to petitioner's counsel on 13.2.2003 now referred as (Annexure R- 2) and no more representations were received from the petitioners (Sr. No. 1 to 12) by the respondents. It is again categorically mentioned here that Punjab Govt. vide Notification No. 7/37/98-5 PP-1/12851 dated 25.9.1998 has already introduced "Assured Career Progression Scheme" for those employees who are not promoted to next higher level on account of non availability of vacancy at such higher level or non existence of promotion in the cadre according to which an employee is granted the pay scale which is next higher in the hierarchy of pay scale after completing 8-16-24-32 years of service wherein there is a provision of next higher scale or atleast one additional increment on completion of 8-16-24-32 years of service. All the said petitioners (Sr. No. 1 to 12) have already been granted the above said benefit. Moreover, it is further submitted that petitioner at Sr. No. 2 (Sh. Karam Singh, Driver) has been given promotion from Beldar to Cleaner to Driver in addition after completion of 8-16-24 years service. Three proficiency step up have been granted. Similarly petitioner at Sr. No. 3 (Sh. Swaran Singh) has been promoted from Foreman to Driver and in addition to two proficiency step up have been granted on completion of 8-16 years) services. Also petitioner at Sr. No. 4 (Gian Singh) Sr. No. 7 (Lakhbir Singh) and Sr. No. 9 (Sewa Singh) have been promoted from Cleaner to Driver and in addition two proficiency step up have been granted on completion of 8-16 service of service. Sr. No. 8 (Balbir Singh) has been promoted from Cleaner to Driver in addition three proficiency step up after completion of 8-16-24 years of service. Petitioner at Sr. No. 12 (Satikshan Kumar) Work Munshi has been granted two proficiency step up after completion of 8-16 years of service, but he did not clear/appear in the departmental test for the next promotion to the post of Junior Engineer as such he is not to be considered for promotion. Petitioner at Sr. No. 6 (Sh. Gurmail Ram) has been promoted from Beldar to Cleaner in addition two proficiency step up have been granted after completion of 8-16 years of service. All the remaining petitioners at Sr. No. 5 (Sukhdev Singh, Sr. No. 10 (Ram Murti) Sr. No. 11 (Mohinder Singh) have been granted proficiency step up as admissible under rule. Petitioner at Sr. No. 1 (Dharam Singh) 8-16-24 years of service, three proficiency step up have been granted.

(3.) We have considered the issue raised on behalf of the petitioners. We have also examined the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Raghunath Prasad Singh's case (supra), specially the observations relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. We are, however, of the view, that the observations of the Apex Court, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, cannot be interpreted in the strict sense expressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. In order to achieve efficiency and accelerated results in performance, the Apex Court recommended, that there should be atleast two promotions in the service career of an employee. It would, however, be apparent from the extracted portion of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Raghunath Prasad Singh's case (supra), that the recommendation made by the Apex Court, was not binding in the sense, that in case, the respondents in the aforesaid matter failed to make an appropriate amendment in the rules, the State government was required to afford a fresh opportunity to the petitioners to make a fresh option to revert to the general cadre as against the wireless cadre in which they were claiming promotional avenues. Although, it stands conceded in the controversy in hand, that adequate avenues of promotion are not available from the posts occupied by the petitioners (although, a few of them - as is apparent from paragraph 3 extracted above - were granted atleast one promotion during their service career), yet to over-come the issue of stagnation in service, the State government introduced the Assured Career Progression Scheme, so as to encourage and prod on in the service of the State government personnel belonging to cadres where adequate avenues of promotion were not available.