RAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is seeking quashment of order (Annexure P-5) and also praying for a writ of mandamus for promoting him as Assistant Superintendent (Revenue) w.e.f. 4.6.1967 and all consequential benefits thereafter.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioner's contention is that plaintiff joined as a Clerk on 22.6.1951, after taking into account his previous five years, military service, his seniority was fixed at Serial No. 14 amongst the integrated Senior Clerks of Deputy Commissioner's office, Patiala, published in revenue department, Pepu notification No. 72 dated 24.10.1956, which was effective since 1.9.1948. He averred that as per seniority, he should have been given promotion as Assistant. He was promoted as Accountant on 8.2.1967 and as Assistant on 1.7.1967, but thereafter he was reverted to the post of Clerk vide order dated 5.9.1967, again promoted as Assistant on 26.5.1968 and was again reverted to the post of Clerk on 16.7.1969. He challenged this reversion order by filing civil suit on 28.2.1973. His suit was decreed on 30.5.1975. The trial Court directed that the plaintiff be considered as on the date when the persons junior to him were promoted and according to rules then in force, if found fit for promotion as on that date the promotion already given to him to that post be dated back to that date and all consequential benefits be also granted to him. Plaintiff filed execution petition wherein he claimed that he was entitled to be considered for promotion to the higher rank of Assistant Superintendent, Superintendent and Tehsildar. The executing Court held that under the judgment and decree, the petitioner was entitled to be promoted to the post of Assistant to which he has already been promoted retrospectively w.e.f. 1.1.59 and given all the benefits; thus, the decree dated 30.5.1975 stands fully satisfied.

(3.) Petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 2538 of 1985 against the executing court's aforesaid order dated 29.5.1985 which was decided on 29.11.1985. The State Government was given direction to consider petitioner on the basis of seniority-cum-merit for the post next higher to that of Assistant and for any post to which post stands restored to him during the pendency of the execution proceedings with all pecuniary benefits available to him under rules. In compliance of this order, the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, passed the order dated 21.3.1986 (Annexure P-5) wherein it was observed that since the petitioner is not fulfilling the eligibility criteria of 5 years experience as Assistant and during the year 1964-65, his work and conduct was not quite satisfactory and his reputation was reported to be shady, he cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent. Thereafter, the aforementioned revision was again heard by the High Court and vide order (Annexure P-6) an opportunity was given to him to challenge the order (Annexure P-5) by filing any departmental appeal, revision, or representation.