Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab And Others vs Ajit Singh on 8 August, 2013
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
1RSA No.1890 of 1993 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1890 of 1993(O&M)
Date of decision: 08.08.2013
State of Punjab and others .....Appellants
VERSUS
Ajit Singh .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Present: Mr. H.S. Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
for the appellants.
None for the respondent.
*******
HEMANT GUPTA, J.(oral) The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court on 11.11.1991, whereby suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff-respondent to set aside the reversion of the plaintiff from the post of Divisional Head Draftsman to Draftsman vide order dated 15.06.1989, was decreed. The appeal against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed.
The plaintiff-respondent had been served by substituted service after numerous attempts to serve him by ordinary process remained unsuccessful. The report was that he had shifted to United States of America. At the time of final hearing none has put in appearance, therefore, the appeal is taken up for hearing.
The plaintiff claims that he was promoted as Divisional Head Draftsman on 15.07.1985 for six months. Thereafter, his promotion was extended vide order dated 25.02.1986. The plaintiff continued to work on Diwakar Gulati 2013.08.12 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2RSA No.1890 of 1993 2 the post of Divisional Head Draftsman but he was relieved on 19.06.1989. It is the said relieving order which was challenged by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff claims that it is the settled law that whosoever has worked for one year in a post on ad hoc basis, he shall be deemed to be confirmed. Therefore, reversion of the plaintiff is bad. It is also asserted that without charge-sheet or inquiry proceedings the plaintiff could not be reverted. On behalf of the defendants, it was asserted that the plaintiff was promoted to the post of Divisional Head Draftsman purely on ad hoc basis against a vacant post that too subject to the condition that plaintiff would not claim his seniority in this cadre nor his promotion would affect the seniority of other officials. The tenure of promotion of the plaintiff was extended for six months. Subsequently, no extension was granted. Since the promotion was purely on ad hoc basis, the plaintiff has no right to claim promotion only because of ad hoc promotion at one stage.
The learned trial Court considered the cross-examination of DW-1 Rattan Pal Gupta, Executive Engineer to the effect that the plaintiff has served for more than 4 years and that there were general instructions that whoever completed one year's service, he should be made regular. The learned trial Court held that cancellation of the promotion without notice is against the principles of natural justice. The Court found that a gross injustice has been done to the plaintiff by the authorities concerned by reverting him to his previous post after a period of 4 years without any notice. Consequently, the suit was decreed. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court holding that it was incumbent upon the State to afford due and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondent before reverting him since he was working on a Diwakar Gulati 2013.08.12 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3RSA No.1890 of 1993 3 promotee post for a period of more than 4 years. It was also found that once a person works on a post for a period of one year he is ought to be confirmed in that position.
The following substantial question of law arises for consideration:-
"Whether an official promoted on ad hoc basis can claim confirmation on the post without undergoing the regular promotion process."
A perusal of the record shows that the plaintiff was initially promoted for a period of 6 months vide office order dated 15.07.1985 Ex.P- 10 with a condition that the promotion is ad hoc and the plaintiff will not claim any seniority nor affect the claim of seniority of any other official. There is no order of consideration of the plaintiff for promotion as Divisional Head Draftsman in accordance with the rules.
Both the Courts below have decreed the suit on the basis of a line picked up from the cross-examination of the defendant's witness DW-1 that whosoever works for a period of more than one year, he is to be confirmed. Such statement of a witness will not confer any right on an employee of the State Government to seek promotion on the higher post de hors the rules and merely for the reason that he was granted ad hoc promotion at one stage. There is no rule or instructions on record that discharge of duties on ad hoc basis will confer any right of regular promotion on such an employee. There is nothing on record that any junior has been promoted substantively while ignoring the senior such as the Plaintiff. The ad hoc promotion given to the plaintiff without considering the claim of all other eligible candidates will not confer any right on the Plaintiff Diwakar Gulati 2013.08.12 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4RSA No.1890 of 1993 4 only for the reason, that at one stage, the Plaintiff was promoted on ad hoc basis.
The judgment and decree passed by the Courts below is based upon surmises and conjectures and, thus, cannot be sustained. Thus it is held that ad hoc promotion of an employee will not confer any right to claim promotion on regular basis. Consequently, while setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, the present second appeal is allowed and the suit is dismissed with no order as to costs.
AUGUST 8, 2013 (HEMANT GUPTA)
'D. Gulati' JUDGE
Diwakar Gulati
2013.08.12 16:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document