IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
Baljit Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr. – Respondents
CWP NO. 35402 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 26-07-2024
JUDGMENT
Mr. Namit Kumar, J. (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the State of Punjab - respondent No.1, to promote the petitioner as Trust Engineer w.e.f. 02.01.2017 i.e. when his juniors were promoted and the petitioner was ignored on account of pending charge-sheet, which has been dropped vide order dated 03.01.2019/09.01.2019 (Annexure P-4), with all consequential benefits.
2. The brief facts of the case as have been pleaded in the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer vide order dated 23.10.2000 and he was promoted to the post of Assistant Trust Engineer vide order dated 16.11.2011 (Annexure P-1). In the seniority list of Assistant Trust Engineer, circulated on 28.12.2016, the name of the petitioner was placed at Serial No.15. The next promotion from the post of Assistant Trust Engineer is to the post of Trust Engineer, which is governed by the Service Rules i.e. "Punjab Trust Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2015, which have been further amended vide amendment dated 11.01.2016. Vide order dated 02.01.2017, respondent No.1 promoted 16 Assistant Trust Engineers to the post of Trust Engineers on adhoc basis in the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100+7600 Grade Pay and some of them were juniors to the petitioner. The name of the petitioner was not considered for the said promotion as charge-sheet was pending against him for dereliction of duties. It was further mentioned in the said order dated 02.01.2017 that if the charge-sheet of any employee is filed or if information is received of any employee, whose name is included in negative list then the junior most promoted officer shall be reverted and the respective senior employee shall be considered for promotion. Thereafter, vide order dated 03.01.2019, having endorsement dated 09.01.2019, the ibid charge-sheet dated 01.10.2015 (Annexure P-4), issued to the petitioner was dropped, however, the said order dropping charge-sheet dated 01.10.2015, was withdrawn by the respondents on 17.03.2020, and vide another order dated 20.07.2020/05.08.2020, the petitioner was exonerated from the charges levelled against him and charge-sheet dated 01.10.2015, issued to him was finally withdrawn. The petitioner was issued another charge-sheet dated 06.07.2017, for dereliction of duties along with various other charges, however, the same was withdrawn vide order dated 28.09.2020 (Annexure P-9). Yet another charge-sheet dated 05.07.2018, was issued to the petitioner for dereliction of duties along with various other charges, however, the petitioner was exonerated in the said charge-sheet vide order dated 27.09.2023 (Annexure P-10) and the charge-sheet was filed. In the meanwhile, the said adhoc promotions were regularized by the Department vide order dated 21.06.2022 and since the charge-sheet was pending against the petitioner, therefore, one post was kept vacant for the petitioner. It has further been averred that one Ravinder Kumar, Assistant Trust Engineer having seniority No.19, was also ignored for promotion as Trust Engineer in the promotion order dated 02.01.2017, on account of pendency of charge-sheet, which was subsequently dropped in his case vide order dated 14.02.2017, however, despite that he was not granted promotion to the post of Trust Engineer w.e.f. 02.01.2017, when his junior was promoted, therefore, he filed a petition i.e. CWP No.9050 of 2017, before this Court and vide order dated 01.05.2017, a direction was issued to decide his claim with regard to promotion to the post of Trust Engineer w.e.f. 02.01.2017, on account of his exoneration. Consequently, vide order dated 28.11.2017, he was granted notional promotion to the post of Trust Engineer w.e.f. 02.01.2017. It has further been submitted that Ravinder Kumar is junior to the petitioner as his seniority in the cadre of Assistant Trust Engineer
Mohd. Ahmed v. Nizam Sugar Factory (2004) 11 SCC 210
Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India (1989) 2 SCC 541
State of A.P. v. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao 1999(2) S.C.T. 684 : (1999) 4 SCC 181
State of Haryana v. O.P. Gupta (1996) 7 SCC 533
State of Uttaranchal v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma 2007(1) S.C.T. 393 : (2007) 1 SCC 683
Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman 1991(3) S.C.T 317 : (1991) 4 SCC 109
An employee denied promotion due to administrative errors is entitled to retrospective promotion and benefits once exonerated from charges.
Promotions may be granted retrospectively with salary when administrative delays occur due to no fault of the employee, avoiding disparate treatment based on administrative negligence.
Point of Law : In case of a notional promotion from retrospective date, it cannot entitle the employee to arrears of salary as the incumbent has not worked in the promotional post.
Employees are not entitled to back wages for notional promotions without actual performance of duties on respective posts.
Post exoneration in disciplinary/criminal proceedings, employee entitled to retrospective promotion with actual monetary benefits from due date, not notional, absent recorded reasons for denial; 'no ....
Promotions take effect from the date granted, not from the date of vacancy, and retrospective seniority cannot be assigned.
The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, but there is no absolute right to promotion itself, which becomes effective only upon assumption of duties.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.