Important Point
While it is right that appellant had only a right to be considered for H.C.S. (Executive Branch) but was not found suitable by a committee however respondents are not justified in not fixing his proper pension and to withhold G.P. Fund and Gratuity on appellant’s superannuation. The same be fixed and paid within 3 months with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date the same became payable to him till the date of actual payment.

Headnote:(i) Service Jurisprudence -Appellant’s grievance was that his name was wrongly excluded from consideration for appointment to the Haryana Civil Services for the years 1980, 1982 and 1983-Whether correct? (No) (Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930-Rule 7(1)).
       Held : The appellant had only a right to be considered and we agree both with the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court his case was properly considered ignoring the expunged adverse entries made in his Annual Confidential Reports by a High Powered Committee but the appellant was not found suitable by that Committee to be recommended to the Commission. It is, therefore, futile to contend that there was any lack of consideration of his case or that the consideration of his case was based on any irrelevant or inadmissible grounds. The record reveals that his case was considered alongwith the service record of the other eligible candidates who had been brought on the select list and we are not pursuaded to hold that the consideration of his case suffered from any infirmity. The plea that the High Powered Committee was influenced by the adverse entries is not correct and deserves a notice only to be rejected. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench in that regard. (Para 9)
       (ii) Service Jurisprudence -Superannuation-Appellant’s retiral benefits e.g. fixation of proper pension, G.P. Fund and Gratuity etc. not paid dispite Court’s order-Direction issued.
       Held : (It was) rightly argued that the respondents were not justified to withhold the G.P. Fund and the Gratuity more particularly in view of the directions given by us on 15.10.97. We, therefore, direct that while the case of fixation of proper pension of the appellant shall be decided by the respondents within three months from the date of this order, the G.P. Fund, Gratuity and other retiral benefits (which remain unpaid) shall also be paid to the appellant within the aforesaid period of three months. The appellant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the withheld G.P. Fund and Gratuity etc. from the date the same became payable to him on his attaining the age of superannuation till the date the payment is made to him. (Para 10)

Order

Leave granted.

2. The appellant is an Ex-Servicemen. He was accepted as a Tehsildar candidate w.e.f. September 13, 1974 and allowed the benefit of military service for the purposes of seniority and was assigned the deemed date of May 27, 1973. It appears that certain adverse remarks came to be recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1978-79, 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1984-85. The appellant questioned the adverse remarks and sought their expunction by filing a writ petition in the High Court in 1987. The High Court on 2nd May, 1990 directed the expunction of the adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Report of the appellant. The High Court also set aside the orders passed by the competent authorities against refusal to expunge the adverse entries. The respondents were directed to grant consequential relief to the appellant. As a consequence of the judgment of the High Court dated 2nd May, 1990, the appellant was promoted as a District Revenue Officer on September 29, 1991 w.e.f. March 15, 1982. The appellant, however, was not satisfied with the orders made pursuant to the judgment of the High Court and he, therefore, filed a special leave petition in this court being S.L.P. (C) No. 104/92 (C.A. No. 4249/92). A Bench of this Court granted leave and by an order dated 12.10.92 directed consideration of the appellant’s name for promotion to H.C.S. (Executive Branch) without taking into account the expunged adverse remarks. After the judgment by this Court rendered in Civil Appeal No. 4249/92 on 12th October, 1992 the case of the appellant was taken up for consideration by the State Government and vide communication dated 28th of December, 1992 from the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh to the appellant, he was informed that the matter had been placed before the selection committee constituted under Rule 7(1) of the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 for considering his name for recruitment to the H.C.S. (Executive Branch) from Register A-1 for the vacancies which occurred in the year 1980 and 1982 as also for the special recruitment to the H.C.S. (Executive Branch) held in 1983, without taking into account the adverse expunged remarks. The appellant was informed that the Selection Committee had considered his name for inclusion in the list of persons considered suitable for appointment to the H.C.S. (Executive Branch) against the vacancies for the said years but that

“The Selection Committee in its meeting held on 16.12.1992 has found the record of other persons whose names had been included in the lists, already prepared on 13.12.1982, 17.3.1987 and 24.2.1988, better than yours and has decided not to include your name in the said lists. Since your name has not been included in the list of persons considered suitable for appointment to the HCS (Executive Branch), you can not be considered for appointment to the HCS (Executive Branch) against the vacancies of Registrar A-I for the years 1980, 1982 and special recruitment for the year 1983.”

3. The appellant thereafter filed Civil Writ Petition No. 6977/93 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana alleging that his name had been wrongly “excluded from consideration for appointment to the Haryana Civil Service for the years 1980, 1982 and 1983.” Various grounds were taken in support of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge of the High Court vide judgment dated 25th July, 1994 dismissed the writ petition. In the course of the judgment the learned Single Judge referred to Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 as amended and applied to the State of Haryana as well as to a comparative chart of the service record of the appellant and those who were selected to the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) in the years 1980, 1982 and 1983. The learned Single Judge observed:

“Learned counsel for the petitioner could not refer to any material on the record to show that the service record of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document