IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

(1)

L.P.A. No. 449 of 2012 ( O&M )

State of Haryana and others

.... APPELLANTS

Versus

Kamlesh Kumari

..... RESPONDENT

(2)

L.P.A. No. 450 of 2012 ( O&M )

State of Haryana and others

.... APPELLANTS

Versus

Mahinder Singh Mehla and others

..... RESPONDENTS

(3)

L.P.A. No. 451 of 2012 ( O&M )

State of Haryana and others

.... APPELLANTS

Versus

Pushpa Devi and others

..... RESPONDENTS

(4)

L.P.A. No. 452 of 2012 ( O&M )

State of Haryana and others

.... APPELLANTS

Versus

Ram Kishan and others

..... RESPONDENTS

(5)

L.P.A. No. 453 of 2012 ( O&M )

State of Haryana and others

.... APPELLANTS

Versus

Sneh Lata and others

..... RESPONDENTS

LPA Nos. 449 to 456 and 460 of 2012

-2-

(6)

L.P.A. No. 454 of 2012 ( O&M )

State of Haryana and others

.... APPELLANTS

Versus

Anshu Mala Sharma and others

..... RESPONDENTS

(7)

L.P.A. No. 455 of 2012 ( O&M )

State of Haryana and others

.... APPELLANTS

Versus

Partap Singh and others

..... RESPONDENTS

(8)

L.P.A. No. 456 of 2012 ( O&M )

State of Haryana and others

.... APPELLANTS

Versus

Shakuntla Nijhawan and others

..... RESPONDENTS

(9)

L.P.A. No. 460 of 2012 ( O&M )

State of Haryana and others

.... APPELLANTS

Versus

Jai Gopal and others

..... RESPONDENTS

DATE OF DECISION : 29.03.2012

LPA Nos. 449 to 456 and 460 of 2012

-3-

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

Present:

Mr. Indresh Goel, Addl. A.G, Haryana,

for the appellants.

* * *

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral )

All these nine Letters Patent Appeals have been filed against

the order dated September 23, 2011, passed by the learned Single Judge,

whereby twelve writ petitions, including nine separate writ petitions filed by

the respondents herein, were allowed and the orders passed by the

appellants withdrawing the benefit of ACP scale to the respondents on the

ground that they had foregone promotion were set aside.

Vide the impugned order, twelve writ petitions, in which the

identical questions of law and facts were involved, were allowed.

Out of those twelve petitions, in two petitions, Letters Patent

Appeals No. 160 and 161 of 2012 were filed, which were dismissed by this

Court on 2.2.2012, while passing the following order :

“1.

The short issue raised in these two appeals bearing

L.P.A. Nos. 160 and 161 of 2012 is `whether refusal to avail

promotion would entail the consequence of forfeiture of

proficiency step up or Assured Career Progression Scheme'.

The answer given by a Division Bench of this Court in the

decision dated 11.2.2008 (P.7) rendered in CWP No. 15839 of

2007 (Nirmal Kanta and another v. State of Haryana) is in the

negative. In other words, refusal to avail promotion would not

LPA Nos. 449 to 456 and 460 of 2012

-4-

forfeit the benefit of proficiency step up. Even S.L.P. filed

against the order dated 11.2.2008 has been dismissed by

Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Following the aforesaid decision,

the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition vide

judgment dated 23.9.2011 which is subject matter of challenge

in these two appeals.

2.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-State

and are of the view that the opinion expressed by the learned

Single Judge is in accord with the judgment of this Court in the

case of Nirmal Kanta (supra). The appeal is wholly without

merit. Dismissed.

3.

A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected

appeal.”

Since the impugned order has already been upheld by this Court in the

aforesaid appeals, for the same reasons, these appeals are also dismissed.

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )

JUDGE

March 29, 2012

( T.P.S. MANN )

ndj

JUDGE