Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurcharan Singh vs Punjab State Warehousing Corporation ... on 6 May, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CWP No. 24733 of 2012 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
226 CWP No. 24733 of 2012
Date of decision: 6.5.2014
Gurcharan Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Warehousing Corporation and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Amit Aggarwal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate,
for the respondents.
****
SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to grant promotion to him as per his entitlement firstly from the year 2006, secondly from the year 2009 and lastly from the year 2010 alongwith all other benefits.
Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he joined the services of the respondent on 6.4.1978 as Technical Assistant. Petitioner retired from the said post on 31.5.2010 after attaining the age of superannuation. Adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner on 15.7.2004 qua his Annual Confidential Report (ACR for short) recorded in the year 2003-04 (annexure P-1). The same, as reproduced in para 3 of the petition, reads as under;-
Devi Anita
2014.05.12 11:44
I am approving this document
Chandigarh
CWP No. 24733 of 2012 2
Temperament Aggressive
Promptness in disposal of works He is irregular in submission
of periodical
returns/statements.
Is he dependable and fit for shouldering higher Un-dependable responsibility Other observation, if any He is careless and negligent in dishcarge of his prime duty of maintenance of quality of stocks.
Due to the adverse remarks in the above ACR, petitioner was not promoted in the year 2006. Petitioner had submitted his reply qua the above ACR but no action had been taken on the same so far. Case of the petitioner was also not considered for promotion in the year 2006 as well as in the years 2009 and 2010.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been denied the right of promotion without any justification. Vide order dated 19.3.2010 ( Annexure P-9), case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion on the ground that disciplinary case was pending against him in less than a year. Petitioner moved a representation before the respondents that he be considered for promotion after the disciplinary case was decided within one year but no action was taken on the same and petitioner retired from service on 31.5.2010. Thereafter, persons, who were junior to the petitioner, earned their promotion.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant on 6.4.1978. Adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner for the year 2003-04 (Annexure P-1). Reply submitted by the petitioner was duly considered and was Devi Anita 2014.05.12 11:44 I am approving this document Chandigarh CWP No. 24733 of 2012 3 rejected vide order dated 21.1.2005 (Annexure R-1). In the year 2006, eligible employees were promoted to the next post but the case of the petitioner could not be considered as he had suffered adverse remarks for the year 2003-04. Petitioner had not challenged the order dated 28.9.2006 (Annexure P-3), vide which eligible employees earned their promotion. In the year 2009, promotions were made to the post of Assistant Storage and Technical Officer (ASTO for short). Petitioner had opted that his name be not considered for the post of ASTO and rather he opted for the post of Warehouse Manager vide letter dated 11.9.2009 (Annexure R-3). Therefore, case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of ASTO. Chargesheet was issued to the petitioner on 24.7.2009 for less storage gain. In the year 2010, name of the petitioner was considered while promoting employees to the post of Warehouse Manager but his name was kept in a sealed cover like other employees, who were facing disciplinary action for the last one year.
In the present case, petitioner had joined as Technical Assistant with the respondent on 6.4.1978 and retired from the said post on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.5.2010. Since the petitioner had earned adverse remarks in his ACR for the year 2003- 04, he could not be considered for promotion in the year 2006 to the post of Technical Officer. A perusal of Annexure P-3 dated 28.9.2006 reveals that the petitioner and similarly situated persons were ignored for the promotion to the post of ASTO as they did not fulfil Devi Anita bench criteria/ adverse service record. The said order was never 2014.05.12 11:44 I am approving this document Chandigarh CWP No. 24733 of 2012 4 challenged by the petitioner immediately.
A perusal of Annexure R-3 reveals that the petitioner had written to the Managing Director of the Corporation that he did not want promotion to the post of ASTO and was rather willing to be promoted to the post of Warehouse Manager. The said option is dated 11.9.2009. Therefore, the petitioner could not be considered for promotion to the post of ASTO in the year 2009. A perusal of order dated 11.11.2009 (Annexure P-8) reveals that the petitioner and other employees, who had opted for promotion to the post of Warehouse Manager, were not considered for promotion to the post of ASTO. Therefore, petitioner was not rightly considered for promotion to the post of ASTO in the year 2009 as per option Annexure R-3.
So far as promotion to the post of Warehouse Manager in the year 2010 is concerned, a perusal of the letter dated 24.4.2010 ( Annexure P-10) reveals that the case of the petitioner and other similarly situated employees was kept in sealed covers as disciplinary cases were pending against them for less than one year. Thus, although, the petitioner fulfilled the required bench mark but disciplinary case was pending against him within one year. Thereafter, the petitioner retired from service on 31.5.2010. Chargesheet dated 24.7.2009 had been served on the petitioner for less storage gain. Thus, the petitioner could not be promoted to the post of Warehouse Manager at the time of passing of the order Annexure R-4/P-9 as at that time disciplinary case less than a year Devi Anita old was pending against him. It is not the case of the petitioner that 2014.05.12 11:44 I am approving this document Chandigarh CWP No. 24733 of 2012 5 while he was in service, any junior to him, who was similarly situated, had been promoted to the post of Warehouse Manager. In these circumstances, the action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioner in the year 2006 and 2009 or 2010 cannot be said to be illegal and therefore, no ground for inference by this Court is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE May 6, 2014 anita Devi Anita 2014.05.12 11:44 I am approving this document Chandigarh