Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kewal Singh Asi vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 27 March, 2009
Author: Permod Kohli
Bench: Permod Kohli
CWP No.19037 of 2007 :1:
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
Date of decision:27.03.2009
Kewal Singh ASI ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab and others ... Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
Present: Mr.AK Goel, Advocate,for the petitioner.
Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab, for the respondents.
PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral):
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. While serving as a Constable, the petitioner was granted out of turn promotion as Officiating Head Constable allegedly being a sports person and having outstanding performance in sports field as a Judo Player vide order dated 26.2.1993 (Annexure P-1). The order also contains a stipulation that he will not claim seniority over his seniors on the basis of such promotion and can be reverted without issuance of any Show Cause Notice. He was transferred from Ludhiana to Sangrur vide order dated 10.05.1999 (Annexure P-2) along with another Head Constable. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Officiating ASI with effect from 20.02.2001 vide order dated 09.06.2001 (Annexure P-4) though his substantive rank continued to be of Head Constable. The petitioner was confirmed as Head Constable with effect from 26.02.1995 vide order dated 25.02.2006 (Annexure P-3). He was also confirmed as ASI with effect CWP No.19037 of 2007 :2: from 20.02.2003 vide order dated 01.05.2006 (Annexure P-5).
It appears that out of turn promotion came to be challenged in a number of writ petitions including Civil Writ Petition No.1815 of 1999. All these writ petitions were finally decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 11.01.2000. It may be useful to refer to the relevant observations/directions given in the judgment aforesaid which are as under:-
"Consequently, we do not find anything wrong in the orders of reversions or show cause notices but in view of the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and the standing orders issued by the Director General of Police referred to above, all such incumbents would not be actually reverted but their present rank would be converted into O.R.P and they would get regular promotions as per their turn in seniority. It may further be observed that as a necessary consequence of such arrangement would be that the incumbents would get the pay of their substantive rank by calculating the pay as the incumbent had held the substantive rank for this period. Of course, no recovery of any excess amount be made. However, it will be open to the State Government if it so chooses to protect the pay of the petitioners, which they are enjoying on the promoted rank."CWP No.19037 of 2007 :3:
In compliance of the judgment aforesaid, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, passed order dated 08.03.2000 (Annexure P-15) whereby out of turn promotion granted to various officials were withdrawn. The petitioner's name figures at serial No.13 of the aforesaid order.
It is the stand of the respondents that this order could not be communicated to the petitioner from Ludhiana to Sangrur and when this matter came to the notice of the authorities, a Committee was constituted and on the the recommendation of the said Committee, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur passed order dated 06.12.2007 (Anneuxre P-9) whereby out of turn promotion granted to the petitioner as Head Constable and ASI have been withdrawn.
The petitioner is aggrieved of the order aforesaid. The only ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that even after the judgment of this Court in the writ petition mentioned above, the petitioner was allowed to continue as Head Constable and was even confirmed as Head Constable. Further contention of the petitioner is that he was further promoted as Officiating ASI and has also been confirmed as ASI. Thus, after a lapse of seven years, the petitioner cannot be deprived of all these promotions.
It is not in dispute that the impugned order withdrawing promotions has been passed consequent upon the Court direction. It is also admitted position that the petitioner was a party to the writ petition wherein the directions referred to here-in-above were issued. As a matter of fact, the CWP No.19037 of 2007 :4: petitioner himself should have honoured the judgment of this Court but he kept silent and secured benefit of the promotion which was otherwise declared illegal by this Court. Under the given circumstances, the petitioner has no right to plead that he having been served for more than seven years on the promotional posts, is not liable to be reverted back. The impugned order has been passed in implementation of the judgment passed by this Court is, thus, legal and valid. The petitioner himself was a party to the writ petition and is bound by its final verdict.
In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
27.03.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE