Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajesh Garg vs Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Ltd on 17 February, 2010
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CWP No. 9891 of 1993 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 9891 of 1993
Date of decision February 17, 2010
Rajesh Garg
....... Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Ltd.
........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:- Mr. Rajesh Garg, petitioner in person.
****
K. Kannan, J (oral).
1. The petitioners who entered the service as Legal Assistant has after filing of the writ petition in the year 1993 retired on 30.1.1999. The prayer in the writ petition is that there are no promotional avenues at all and the respondent shall be directed to frame appropriate rules providing for promotional avenues. The fact that he entered as a Legal Assistant and retired as a Legal Assistant after 28 years of service according to him itself shows that there had been no scope for promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghunath Prasad Singh Vs. Secretary Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar and others reported in AIR 1988 SC 1033, Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1990 SC 311, State of Tripura Vs. K. K. Roy reported in 2004 AIR (SC) 1249, Capt. Nirmaljit Singh Sandhu Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1994 (2) SCT 339, Shiv Ram Sharma Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir reported in 1998 (3) SCT 222 and Jagendra Singh Chandel Vs. State of M.P. and another reported in 2005 (3) SCT
123. This Court has also given a direction in Capt.Nirmaljit Singh's case (supra) that non providing of promotional avenues would lead to frustration CWP No. 9891 of 1993 2 in the career and this Court directed the government to amend the rules for promotional avenues to Class II and Class-I post.
2. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is no longer in service and that he has also been superannuated, any direction from this Court shall purely be academic. It is not possible to provide for creation of posts retrospectively or provide for only notional promotions for posts that may be created in future to the petitioner to enable him to earn retiral benefits as such increase. Having regard to the present situation that the petitioner can not obtain the benefit of any directions, I refrain from giving any positive directions in the manner asked for by him. I leave the case with the hope that the respondent will address itself on how the service jurisprudence has evolved that promotions spur incentives to work harder and stagnation is a curse that pulls down efficiency. Between efficient work force and inert ridden employees the choice is clear for the Management. They shall regulate their own rules to be visited by avenues form promotion, which is an accepted management practice in every branch of governance. The respondents shall appropriately set its house in order in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. With this observation, the writ petition is dismissed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 17, 2010 archana