Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Kumar Aggarwal vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 17 February, 2023
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 217 CWP-6568-2018 Date of decision: 17.02.2023 PREM KUMAR AGGARWAL ..Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus. The writ petition has been filed with the following substantive prayers:-
MOHD AYUB 2023.02.23 13:26 | attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
"(a) issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari/mandamus or such other appropriate writ order or direction for quashing the action of the respondents in not considering and granting the petitioner his due promotion on the post of District Treasury Officer as per his seniority and also under Handicapped Quota from the due date prior to his retirement, as patently illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Government Instructions dated 08.05.2017 (P-13), the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, Punjab Government Instructions dated 05.07.2011 (P-8) and 25.11.2013 (P-
10) and violative of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9096 of 2013, Union of India and others Vs. National Federation of Blind Child & others decided on 08.10.2013 and in WP. (Civil) No.116 of 1998 decided on 26.03.2014 wherein, it has been held that the Government is duty bound to implement the provisions of the 1995 Act;
(b) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and grant due retrospective promotion to the petitioner on the post of District Treasury Officer against vacant posts in terms of Punjab Government Instructions dated 08.05.2017 (P-13) prior to his retirement with all consequential benefits;
MOHD AYUB CWP-6568-2018 -2-
(c) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus further directing the respondents to consider and grant the petitioner his due benefit of ACP on completion of four years service in the cadre of Treasury Officer wef. 29.12.2014 with all consequential benefits; "
2. In substance, the petitioner prays that he is entitled to be promoted as a District Treasury Officer with effect from the date he became eligible for the post of District Treasury Officer. It may be noted here that the petitioner on attaining the normal age of superannuation, retired on 31.12.2017, though, he worked for an additional period of two years till 31.12.2019. In substance, the petitioner claims that under the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the '1995 Act'), the vacancies are required to be reserved for persons suffering from disabilities. He submits that the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9096 of 2013, titled as "Union of India and another Vs. National Federation of Blind Child others" decided on_ 08.10.2013, directed the appropriate Government to compute the number of vacancies available for the persons suffering from disabilities in all the establishments and complete the exercise within a period of three months. It has further been submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in CWP-22813-2013, titled as "National Federation of the Blinds, Punjab Branch Vs. State of Punjab and another", decided on 11.10.2013, held that such directions issued by the Supreme Court are also binding on the State Governments and Union Territories.
3. The petitioner claims that he became eligible for promotion as District Treasury Officer with effect from 28.12.2016. Hence, he is entitled to be considered and promoted from that date by the concerned authority. 2023.02.23 13:26 | attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
MOHD AYUB CWP-6568-2018 -3-
4. The learned counsel representing the petitioner also relies upon a Division Bench judgment passed in State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, (2018) 4 SCT 549 to contend that the retrospective promotion with respect to the retired employees can also be ordered as the respondents cannot take undue advantage of their own inaction or wrongs.
5. This Court has considered the submissions and analyzed the arguments of the learned counsel representing the parties.
6. It is not the case of the petitioner that meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was never held till 21.12.2017. It is also not his case that his juniors have been promoted to the post of District Treasury Officer and he has not been promoted. It is a well settled rule that the employee has a right to be considered for promotion if he is eligible, as and when the employer decides to make the promotions. The employee has no right to claim promotion from a date he becomes eligible. In the present case, as already noticed, the petitioner has not been ignored by the authority while promoting his juniors. The judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the High Court are in the context of ensuring that the provisions of the 1995 Act are complied with in letter and spirit. However, the aforesaid judgments with highest respect do not deal with the situation where the employer does not feel the necessity of carrying out any promotion as per the department's requirement. In this case, the petitioner cannot claim to have been victimized as no one including the candidates belonging to general, reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes, were promoted by the authority. 2023.02.23 13:26 | attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
MOHD AYUB CWP-6568-2018 -4-
7. The judgment of the Division Bench in Jagjit Singh's case (supra) relates to a case where there was a delay in determining the seniority of the employees which resulted in denial of promotion. In that context the Division Bench held that the promotions be granted retrospectively to the eligible promotees.
8. Hence, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, finding no merit.
10. Dismissed.
11 All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
February 17", 2023 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) Ay JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 2023.02.23 13:26 | attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.