A.K. Bhatia Son Of Shri Gurdial Chand vs The Punjab State Cooperative Supply & ... on 2 February, 2012

[Cites 1, Cited by 5]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

A.K. Bhatia Son Of Shri Gurdial Chand vs The Punjab State Cooperative Supply & ... on 2 February, 2012

Bench: K. Kannan

CWP No.15003 of 2008(O&M)                              [1]


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

                                 CWP No.15003 of 2008(O&M)
                                 Date of Decision:02.02.2012


A.K. Bhatia son of Shri Gurdial Chand, Senior Manager (Modern
Rice Mills) presently on deputation as General Manager (Proc.)
Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Sector 28, Chandigarh.
                                                ... Petitioner
                            Versus
The Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation
Ltd. (MARKFED, Markfed House No.4, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh
through its Managing Director and others.
                                           ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

Present:Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate with
        Ms. Ritam Aggarwal, Advocate
        for the petitioner.
        Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for
        Mr. Randeep Rai, Sr. Advocate,
        for respondent No.1.
        Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab,
        for respondent No.2.
        Mr. APS Sandhir, Advocate for
        Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate,
        for respondent No.3.
                              *****
        1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to
          see the judgment? NO
        2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO
        3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the
          digest? NO

K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)

CM No.1296 of 2010 Allowed as prayed for.

CM No.1297 of 2010

CM is allowed.

Annexures R-1/5 and R-1/6 are taken on record. CM stands disposed of.

CWP No.15003 of 2008(O&M) [2] CWP No.15003 of 2008

1. The petitioner, who had been a Senior Manager in MARKFED has a complaint that the 3rd respondent, who was a Project Officer holding an ex-cadre post, was brought into the cadre, through a resolution of the Board of Directors w.e.f. 22.09.1981, promoted as Deputy Chief Manager w.e.f. 22.09.1986 and given further promotion as a Chief Manager against a vacant post of Chief Manager (Rice Mills). The contention of the petitioner is that he was a direct recruit to the post of Manager in November, 1981, which was re- designated as Senior Manager and the 3rd respondent could not have been promoted to the post as Chief Manager when he being a person in the cadre was not considered for such promotion.

2. The contention on behalf of MARKFED is that the 3rd respondent was brought into the cadre for ironing some anomalies caused by allowing vacant posts in the Chief Managers' post to be filled up by persons, who were holding similar scales as the 3rd respondent and to avoid undue discrimination, the 3rd respondent was brought into the cadre, given promotion w.e.f. 22.09.1981 and the further promotions as referred to in the impugned order.

3. The grievance of the petitioner has to be addressed from a simple situation of a person, who was already in the cadre, could not have been discarded on a specious plea that there was no channel of promotion from the post as Senior Manager to the Chief Manager post. If such a consideration obtained to the benefit of the 3rd respondent, for the same reason, the petitioner was entitled to similar consideration, as well. The petitioner canvasses support from the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in K.C. Gupta & 117 others v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & 43 others, 1995(1), All India Services Law Journal CWP No.15003 of 2008(O&M) [3] 43, where Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that the service of an ex-cadre post cannot be counted towards the service of cadre post. Non-consideration of the petitioner's case for further promotion to the Chief Manager post was, therefore, not appropriate and, therefore, he must be treated as having been promoted on the day when the 3rd respondent was promoted. The contention of the respondents that there is an acute financial stringency and it is not possible to accommodate the petitioner to the post as a Chief Manager's post are belied by the fact that even during this time an additional charge is said to have been given to Mr. A.S. Shekhon as Chief Manager. Even the contention that the Senior Manager's post was not a channel for promotion to the Chief Manager's post is contested by the petitioner pointing out that yet another person namely Mr. Raghav, who had been previously Senior Manager, was promoted as Chief Manager.

4. Under the circumstances, the petitioner's plea is accepted and the petitioner shall be entitled for consideration for promotion to the post of Chief Manager to be operative w.e.f. 18.07.2008 the day when the 3rd respondent had been promoted. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders, promoting the petitioner above with all consequential benefits attendant to such consideration.

2nd February, 2012                               ( K. KANNAN )
Rajan                                                 JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court