MANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the State Government prepares a policy to give service benefits to its employees, the State is required to implement it equally among the employees. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Manjit Singh, Sectional Officer of Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch), Punjab seeks promotion under the policy decision of the Government on the ground that he rendered meritorious services during the war-time. The petitioner was appointed as Sectional Officer in November, 1969. Several employees of the Punjab Irrigation Department performed civil duties in spite of grave circumstances during the Indo-Pak conflicts of 1965 and 1971. They worked at strategic and vulnerable points. Some of the employees also rendered meritorious services during the floods of 1975. During the Indo-Pak war in the year 1971, the petitioner was working as Sectional Officer in Wagah Sector in Drainage Construction Division. He remained at the site of his work despite the fact that it was heavily mined and under heavy shelling. He ignored all risks to his life and worked with devotion with the military authorities. Copies of certificates issued by the military authorities for his meritorious services during this period were produced as Annexure P-1 and P-2. His case was recommended by the Chief Engineer vide Annexure P-3 for promotion under the policy decision of the Government. But no decision was taken by the Government, although this benefit was allowed to Megh Singh and Sampuran Singh. These benefits allowed to these persons were withdrawn subsequently but restored in 1980 again coming to know that the representation of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he had not passed the Departmental Examinations, that is D.P.E. and D.R.E., he subsequently also cleared those examinations in June, 1982 and November, 1983 respectively. It was asserted by the petitioner that by relaxing the rules of passing these examinations, the aforesaid benefit was given to Gurdev Singh Parmar and others. Be that as it may, after passing the Departmental Examinations, his case was again recommended for promotion on the ground of his having rendered meritorious services during the Indo-Pak war. His representation is Annexure P-4 and the recommendations of the Chief Engineer dated 26.4.1984 is Annexure P-5. Even this representation was not decided. The petitioner thus, served a demand notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code (copy Annexure P-6). The Chief Engineer again addressed a letter to Secretary to Government of Punjab dated 5th March, 1986 for favourable consideration of the petitioner. The copy of the said letter is Annexure P-7.

(2.) Notice of the writ petition having been issued to the respondents, no written statement was filed by the respondents. However, the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents argued that on account of delay in approaching this Court, the relief should not be allowed to the petitioner. This contention in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand cannot be accepted. As the facts briefly noticed above, the petitioner has been clamouring to seek redress from the respondents although he fulfils all the qualifications for the grant of service benefits. The question of delay was also urged in a similar matter in Gurnam Singh Brar v. The State of Punjab and another, Civil Writ Petition No. 1804 of 1984, decided on 25th September, 1987 by S.S. Kang, J. of this Court and the same was repelled. The case in hand is at par with the case of Gurnam Singh Brar . From the two certificates produced by the petitioner, the services rendered by him during the war-time were commenced by the military authorities as meritorious services performed at great risk of personal safety by the petitioner. The only ground on which his representation was earlier rejected was that he had not passed the Departmental Examinations. Now as already stated above, the petitioner has passed the Departmental Examinations in June, 1982 and November, 1983 respectively. Nothing has been shown on behalf of respondents that the case of the petitioner is not covered by the policy decision of the Government. When others were allowed the similar benefits on the same ground, it would be arbitrary to refuse the same in the case of the petitioner.

(3.) For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of the Sub-Divisional Officer with effect from the date the persons similarly situated were promoted.