IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

236 CWP-26739-2018 (O & M)

Date of decision: 15.01.2025 Jagjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. R.K.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Sehajbir Singh Aulakh, AAG, Punjab.

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the order dated 03.10.2016 issued vide endorsement dated 08.11.2016 (Annexure P-3) to the extent of denying retrospective promotion to the petitioner to the post of District Treasury Officer and consequential promotion to the post of Deputy Controller (F&A).

2. The petitioner, who joined as a Clerk, was promoted as Assistant on 21.11.1997 and Treasury Officer on 05.01.2001.He preferred CWP-9919-1992, quashing action of the respondents in placing private respondents No.3 to 21 therein as senior to him in the seniority list of Senior Assistants, which was disposed of on 13.03.2014, relevant paras whereof read thus:

“After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made above, where the petitioners are claiming that they should be placed higher in the seniority list as compared to the private respondents for the reason that they had passed the Assistant Grade Examination before they were promoted as Assistant whereas the private respondents were initially promoted as Assistant provisionally subject to their passing of the Assistant Grade examination but when they did not pass it, they were granted exemption from passing the test on 03.05.1985. In terms of law laid down by this Court in Charan Singh's case (supra), where while interpreting Rule 12 of 1984 Rules, it has been held that such an exemption from passing the Assistant Grade examination shall operate prospectively and any benefit shall accrue to such persons from the date the exemption is granted. Keeping in view the aforesaid enunciation of law, the petitioners have been able to make the case that they deserve to be ranked senior to the private respondents as they were promoted after they had passed the Assistant Grade examination whereas the private respondents, who were promoted prior to the petitioners as Assistant but provisionally, at that stage, subject to passing their Assistant Grade examination. They did not pass the examination but were granted exemption on 03.05.1985 and as such they shall be deemed to have been promoted on that date.

After correcting the seniority list, the petitioners be given all consequential benefits including any further promotion etc., if available. However, as fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they shall not be claiming any arrears. Their pay/pension be notionally fixed and for future whatever is due to them be paid from April, 2013 onwards. It is further made clear that the benefits already granted to the respondents, who have already retired from service will not be disturbed in any manner.

The present petition, is accordingly, disposed of.”

3. In compliance to the said directions, the petitioner was placed at Sr.No.174 in the seniority list, however, his claim for promotion to the said post w.e.f. the date that of his juniors, has been denied on account of he having not passed the departmental examination, despite the fact that vide order dated 09.03.1983 (Annexure P-4), the Govt. had relaxed the condition of passing the said examination with regard to the officer who had attained or would attain the age of 52 years on the 31^st December of the year in which he has to be promoted, which he had completed on 06.02.2007, the year in which he was entitled for promotion having 6 years of service as required by the statutory rules. As regards, the ACRs for the years 2002-2007, out of which two were ‘average’, the same having not been conveyed, are liable to be disregarded at the time of re-determination, as has been held by this Court in Dr. Gurdev Singh Bhardwaj vs. State of Punjab and others¹,