Kali Ram And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 13 December, 2013

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kali Ram And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 13 December, 2013

Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina

                                            CWP No.27420 of 2013

                                                      -1-

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                                     CHANDIGARH


                                                       Civil Writ Petition No.27420 of 2013
                                                              Date of decision: 13.12.2013


           Kali Ram and others
                                                                            ..... Petitioner(s)

                                                 Versus


           Union of India and others

                                                                          ..... Respondent(s)

           CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

           Present:            Mr.R.Kartikeya, Advocate,
                               for the petitioners.

                                          *****
           1.         To be referred to the Reporters or not?
           2.         Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

           RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. (Oral)

For the grant of 2nd ACP pay scales, there were two conditions precedent; one that the employee should have rendered 24 years of service and he should have passed the departmental examination. For no fault of the petitioners, the examination was not held even after they had completed 24 years of service. This issue was raised before Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No.5539 of 2013; Jaipal Singh and others v. UOI and others and connected writ petitions. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court issued directions to the respondents to grant the 2nd financial upgradation to the petitioners therein under the ACP scheme floated by the Central Government on completion of 24 years of regular service. The decision of Delhi High Court was rendered on September 06, 2013.

Kumar Paritosh

2013.12.19 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.27420 of 2013 -2-

2. The Court took the view that where the examination was not held due to the fault of the Government, the employees could not be made to suffer for it. It was the responsibility of the respondents to detail an individual for the pre-promotional course and having not done that, they cannot be allowed to withhold the benefits entitled to an individual for their own faults. On these premises, the writ petition was allowed and a writ of Certiorari was issued quashing signals dated 28.5.2013 and 3.7.2013. The judgment of the Delhi High Court according to Mr.Kartikeya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has been implemented qua those petitioners.

3. In the present case, the petitioners were accorded similar treatment as accorded to the petitioners under Delhi High Court order but later on, a similar signal was issued detrimental to the interest of the petitioners informing that the 2nd financial upgradation would not be available to them since they have not passed the pre-promotional course.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the meantime, the departmental examination/pre-promotional course test has been held and the petitioners have qualified that test.

5. Mr.Kartikeya points out that the petitioners had completed 24 years of service between 1999 to 2004 and a right had accrued to them for the grant of 2nd financial upgradation with reference to retroactive dates. Therefore, their clearing departmental examination is good enough for further promotion but not to deny past benefits of the 2nd ACP pay scales.

6. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in denying them the 2nd financial upgradation, the petitioners have made a representation to the Government for redressal of their grievances.

Kumar Paritosh

2013.12.19 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.27420 of 2013 -3-

7. Mr.Kartikeya says that the representation is cryptic in the sense that it is not articulated in expressing the grievance. He submits that his clients would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide that representation by treating the present writ petition as a supplementary representation.

8. The prayer of the petitioners appears to be reasonable and they have a right to get their status declared in terms of the ACP scheme.

9. In the circumstances, a direction is issued to the respondents/decision maker to consider and decide the representation by treating the present writ petition as a supplementary representation by passing a speaking order. The decision may be taken keeping in view the judgment of Delhi High Court in Jaipal Singh's case (supra). In case, the respondents grant the benefit of their own, there would be no necessity to pass an order. However, if any, a view adverse to the interest of the petitioners is taken, then the petitioners would be afforded an effective opportunity of hearing before the final order is passed which will disclose the reasons for reaching the conclusion. Let the final decision be taken within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

10. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations and directions.

Order dasti.

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE December 13, 2013 Paritosh Kumar Kumar Paritosh 2013.12.19 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court