Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Territory vs Vin Dosajh And Another on 4 March, 2013
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
CWP No. 3865 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 3865 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 4.3.2013
Union Territory, Chandigarh and another
..... Petitioners
Versus
Vin Dosajh and another
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
PRESENT: Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Sangeeta Dhanda, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)
The petitioners impugn the order dated 18.10.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the petitioners have been directed to promote the first respondent to the post of Head of the Department (Pharmacy) at Government Polytechnic for Women, Sector-10, Chandigarh "with effect from the date the relevant vacancy became available" along with all the consequential benefits within two months.
2. The above-stated vacancy had arisen w.e.f. 1.8.2006 whereas the first respondent was promoted w.e.f. 8.5.2009. It may be mentioned CWP No. 3865 of 2012 -2- here that the Tribunal while accepting the claim of respondent No. 1 has relied upon its previous decisions in the cases of (i) Mrs. K. Ranga Rajyam and (ii) Mrs. Veena Sood and observed that since the above- stated orders were accepted by the petitioner-Administration and both the applicants were granted retrospective promotions from the date of occurrence of vacancies, the first respondent is also entitled to seek parity.
3. The petitioner-Administration on the other hand refers to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttranchal and another Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, 2007 (1) SCC 683 laying down as follows:-
"It is thus apparent that service jurisprudence does not recognize the jurisprudential concept of deemed retrospective promotion and unless there exists a rule or there exists a residual power and in the exercise of implementation of the rule or in exercise of power conferred by the residual rule a decision is taken or can be taken to grant retrospective promotion, no person can claim a right to be promoted from the date when the vacancy accrued and he must take the promotion with its benefits from the date of actual promotion."
4. During the course of hearing, it is fairly conceded by Ms. Lisa Gill, learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions from the departmental official that pursuant to the order under challenge passed by the Tribunal, the first respondent would not get any monetary benefit as CWP No. 3865 of 2012 -3- she was already officiating as Head of the Department on current duty charge basis w.e.f. 12.12.2005 and was getting the salary of Head of the Department. It is pointed out by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that she is otherwise senior-most in the Department. If that is so, it is obvious that neither respondent No. 1 would be entitled to any monetary benefit nor she affects anybody's seniority in the department as a result of retrospective promotion from the date of occurrence of the vacancy. In this view of the matter, we do not deem it necessary to interfere with the directions issued by the Tribunal except to the extent that in our considered view, retrospective promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right unless the Rules permits so or there exists some special or peculiar facts and circumstances for issuing such direction. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of without interfering with the order passed by the learned Tribunal, however, with a clarificatory direction that as and when an applicant seeks retrospective promotion on the basis of the instances referred to above or on the strength of the order under challenge, the learned Tribunal shall not be influenced by its previous orders and shall decide the same keeping in view the binding precedents in accordance with law.
5. Disposed of.
( SURYA KANT )
JUDGE
March 04, 2013 ( R.P. NAGRATH )
rishu JUDGE