Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rattan Chand vs K.B.S. Sidhu And Others on 25 February, 2009
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.O.C.P. No. 578 of 2008
Date of Decision : February 25, 2009
Rattan Chand
....Petitioner
Versus
K.B.S. Sidhu and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. K.R. Raju, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondents.
T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)
The petitioner had earlier filed C.W.P. No. 17036 of 2005, wherein he sought issuance of directions to the respondents to give him notional retrospective promotion to the post of Lecturer from the date when similarly situated persons were promoted, i.e. w.e.f. 19.1.1987 along with all the consequential benefits like arrears of salary, pension, gratuity, etc. The writ petition came up for hearing on March 16, 2007, when learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was being given retrospective promotion w.e.f. 19.1.1987 consistent with the prayer made by him in the writ petition. He, accordingly, stated that the writ petition be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous in view of the written statement filed by the respondents. Resultantly, the writ petition was disposed of as having C.O.C.P. No. 578 of 2008 -2- been rendered infructuous. The petitioner then filed the present petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act with a prayer that despite the stand taken by the respondents in the written statement, no benefit had been given to him and, that too, after a period of 12 months had elapsed since the passing of the order dated 16.3.2007.
Reply has been filed by respondent No. 3. It has been mentioned therein that the revised pension, determined on the basis of revised pay of the petitioner, has been sanctioned by the Accountant General, Punjab (A&E) vide letter dated 16.12.2008. Moreover, the petitioner has been granted the benefit of pay fixation as well as seniority by taking into consideration his retrospective promotion as Lecturer (Punjabi) w.e.f. 19.1.1987 as undertaken by the respondents. All the consequential benefits and retiral benefits have been granted to the petitioner. However, revised death-cum-retirement gratuity and leave encashment amounting to Rs. 7,029/- and Rs. 2,660/-, respectively were released to the petitioner on 2.1.2009 vide Demand Draft, but the petitioner refused to receive the same. Similarly, as per the undertaking given by the respondents, the petitioner has been granted the benefit of seniority by taking into consideration his retrospective promotion w.e.f. 19.1.1987 and his seniority as the Lecturer has been fixed at serial No. 606-A. The promotion from the Lecturer cadre to the cadre of PES-II (School and Inspection Cadre) has been made by promoting the Lecturer belonging to Scheduled Caste category, who was placed at seniority No. 383 and no Lecturer belonging to Scheduled Caste, category (Male), and placed below seniority No. 383 has been promoted as PES-II (School and Inspection Cadre). Hence, the petitioner has been C.O.C.P. No. 578 of 2008 -3- placed at seniority No. 606-A in the seniority-list in the cadre of Lecturer. The petitioner has since retired on 28.2.2003. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for promotion to the cadre of PES-II (School and Inspection Cadre).
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that even after granting retrospective promotion to the petitioner, persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted as PES-II (School and Inspection Cadre), whereas the petitioner has been ignored.
No such directions were issued by the Division Bench on 16.3.2007, when the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. On the other hand, the respondents were required to give due promotion to the petitioner and, that too, retrospectively, which has since been given to the petitioner.
In view of the above, there is no merit in the present petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, the petitioner would be at liberty to agitate in accordance with law against the action of the respondent in not promoting him, inspite of the persons junior to the petitioner having been promoted already, if so advised.
( T.P.S. MANN )
February 25, 2009 JUDGE
satish