LAWS(P&H)-2007-1-177

RAM SARUP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Decided On January 17, 2007
RAM SARUP Appellant
V/S
State Of Haryana And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of two appeals i.e. LPA No. 541 of 2002 filed by Ram Sarup and LPA No. 185 of 2003 filed by the Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula (hereinafter to be referred as 'HUDA') as both arise from the judgment in CWP No. 4936 of 1998.

(2.) Ram Sarup, the appellant in LPA No. 541 of 2002, is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge in so far as it denies back wages. HUDA, the appellant in LPA No. 185 of 2002 is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, directing it to consider the service record of last 10 years before 1988-89 and to consider the report for the year 1988-89 as Good.

(3.) A brief factual narrative of the present controversy would be appropriate. The appellant was appointed as Clerk in the office of HUDA on 3.1.1978. He was promoted as an Assistant w.e.f. 23.1.1983. As he suffered from heart ailment, he requested that his promotion as Head Clerk be kept in abeyance till his condition improves. Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 were promoted as Head Clerks, ignoring the claim of the appellant vide order dated 29.9.1989. Promotion was denied to the appellant, on the basis of his service record/pending disciplinary action as recorded in the aforementioned order. The appellant immediately sent a representation dated 3.10.1989 to the Chief Administrator, HUDA stating therein that he had requested that his promotion be kept in abeyance on account of his ill health but promotion had been denied on the ground of his service record and that disciplinary action was pending against him. It was alleged that no disciplinary action was pending against the appellant and his service record did not warrant such an order. Thereafter other Assistants were promoted to the post of Head Clerk vide orders dated 28.2.1992 and 14.11.1994. In the order dated 14.11.1994, it was once again recorded that the appellant was denied promotion on account of unsatisfactory service record and pending disciplinary proceedings.