Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardev Sharma vs State Of Punjab Through The Secretary To ... on 16 April, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CWP No.10139 of 1991(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.10139 of 1991(O&M)
Date of Decision: 16.04.2012
Hardev Sharma, Accountant, Office of Assistant Excise and Taxation
Commissioner, Ludhiana-I.
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab through the Secretary to Govt. Punjab Excise and Taxation
Department, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present: Mr. Jaivir Chandail, Advocate for
Mr. Arun Jain, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Sahu, AAG, Punjab,
for the respondents No.1 and 2.
None for respondents No.3 to 5.
*****
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)
1. The petitioner's contention is that he had passed the Assistant Grade Examination in June, 1987 but he had not been promoted at the time when his juniors respondents No.3 to 5 had been promoted. The reason for promoting his juniors as contended by the official respondents was that his juniors had passed the examination in less than 5 attempts while the petitioner had passed the qualifying examination only in the 6th attempt. The issue of whether the number of times that the person had appeared for clearing the examination could make a difference was considered by this Court in Ashok Kumar v. CWP No.10139 of 1991(O&M) -2- The State of Punjab and others in CWP No.5203 of 1988 and this Court by its order dated 03.04.1990 has held that it could make no difference. The same position has also been considered by the Supreme Court while confirming a decision of this Court in Saroj Rani v. State of Punjab in Civil Appeal Nos.11660-11661 of 1995.
2. The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 states that the seniority has been re-fixed in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Saroj Rani's case. A fortiori the petitioner shall be entitled to similar consideration and he shall be treated as having been promoted on the day when his juniors, namely, respondents No.3 to 5 were promoted. The consequential benefits attendant on the consideration for promotion from an earlier date, that is, from the date when respondents No.3 to 5 had been promoted shall be worked out and if there are any arrears, the same shall be released to the petitioner within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits in the service by applying the rule of seniority treating him as senior to the respondents No.3 to 5 in the promoted post as well.
3. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms.
16th April, 2012 ( K. KANNAN ) rajan JUDGE