Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Another vs Hem Raj And Another on 30 January, 2009
Author: Nirmaljit Kaur
Bench: Mehtab S. Gill, Nirmaljit Kaur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CASE NO.: CWP No.1384 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION : January 30,2009
Union of India and another .......Petitioners
Versus
Hem Raj and another
......Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S. GILL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR.
PRESENT: Mr. R.K. Chugh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.
The respondent was promoted as Poultry Inspector w.e.f. 18-03-1974, in Punjab Pay Scale. However, the financial benefits were restricted from 05-06-1982, vide order dated 28-04-2004. Further pay was to be fixed in Central Pay Scale. The respondent represented to the petitioners but to no avail. He was forced to file the present O.A. No. 241/CH/2006 to grant him promotion w.e.f. 18-03-1974, which actually stood allowed on 28-04-2004. He is, accordingly, entitled to arrears by way of fixation of pay in Punjab Pay Scales w.e.f. 18-03-1974. However, the same was denied to him. The O.A. was allowed by holding that it is not in dispute that High Court had held the applicant to be entitled to promotion w.e.f. 18-03-1974 and it was further not in dispute that the actual date of CWP No.1384 of 2009 -2- appointment as Poultry Inspector was 18-03-1974 and that one of the reason why the applicant was denied promotion to the post of Assistant Manager was that he was on deputation during the relevant period. The deputation of a person would not make any difference if he is to be given promotion on performance basis even in the department where he is on deputation basis if he is entitled to promotion in his parent department.
The only argument raised while challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is that the respondent had not worked on the post and, therefore, his pay was notionally fixed w.e.f. 18-03-1974 and actual benefits were granted to him from the date he was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager i.e. 05-06-1982. He was given notional promotion in compliance with the Court case judgment. He cannot claim seniority over Swinder Singh.
However, we find no merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner-Union of Inida.
This point was specifically dealt with by the Central Administrative Tribunal, wherein finding is recorded that as per the instructions of Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT), when appointment by way of promotion and direct recruitment is made, quota system is followed in which the first point goes to the promotee and the respondent herein being promotee appears to be entitled to first point and, therefore, should have been placed senior to Swinder Singh as per the relevant rules and instructions. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to dispute the same. It is also not denied that he was allowed promotion w.e.f. 18-03-1974. Thus, he cannot be denied benefits of pay and allowances for the period for which he was wrongly not CWP No.1384 of 2009 -3- promoted.
No other argument was raised.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merit.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE (MEHTAB S. GILL) JUDGE January 30, 2009 gurpreet