Punjab-Haryana High Court
M.L Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 24 September, 2014
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3678 OF 1993 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3678 OF 1993
DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 24, 2014
M.L.Sharma .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another .......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Mr.BS Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Harish Rathee, Senior Deputy Advocate General,
Haryana.
<><><>
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
Challenge in the instant writ petition is to the order dated 21.5.1992, Annexure P11, whereby the claim of the petitioner seeking promotion to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from the date his junior was promoted, has been rejected.
2. Brief facts that emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the P.W.D., Public Health Department of the Haryana State on 23.7.1971. Apparently, the petitioner raised a claim for counting of military service during the period of emergency and as per provisions of the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965. Such claim came to be accepted by the respondent- SUSHAMA RANI MALIK 2014.09.30 12:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3678 OF 1993 2 Authorities and the petitioner was given a deemed date of appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 26.9.1967.
3. A tentative seniority list of Haryana Service of Engineers, Class-II Officers came to be circulated on 28.10.1986 in which the name of the petitioner figured at Serial No.1 by virtue of grant of benefit towards military service rendered and over and above one Shri AS Ahlawat. Having considered objections that were filed against such tentative seniority list, a final seniority list was issued in which the petitioner was placed at Serial No.1 and declared senior to Shri Ahlawat.
4. It so transpires that while the matter with regard to grant of military service benefit to the petitioner was still under consideration, Shri Ahlawat had already been promoted as Executive Engineer on 21.5.1976, whereas the petitioner was so promoted on 2.6.1987.
5. Consequent to military service benefit having been granted and the petitioner having been declared senior to Shri Ahlawat, he raised a claim to be promoted as Executive Engineer w.e.f. 21.5.1976 i.e. the date Shri Ahlawat had been promoted. It is towards rejection of such claim that the impugned order dated 21.5.1992 has been passed.
6. In the reply filed on behalf of the State, the facts broadly have not been disputed. However, a stand has been taken that the case of the petitioner for promotion as Executive Engineer w.e.f. 21.5.1976 i.e. the date his junior, namely, Shri Ahlawat had been promoted was duly considered, but on account of service record of the petitioner he was not found upto the SUSHAMA RANI MALIK 2014.09.30 12:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3678 OF 1993 3 mark. It has been categorically averred in para 7 of the reply that upto March 1976, the petitioner had earned four reports, out of which one report was 'Good', two were 'Average' and one was adverse which were duly communicated to the petitioner. It has further been stated that the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer was again considered in December 1977, but he was again not found suitable on the basis of his service record. Thereafter, the petitioner had been promoted as Executive Engineer but w.e.f. 30.12.1978.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves dismissal.
8. The vested right with the petitioner in law is for a consideration for promotion to the higher post if eligible. Furthermore, such consideration has to be fair and equitable. Undisputedly, the petitioner having been granted the military service benefit and having been treated as senior to Shri Ahlawat in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, he was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from the date his junior i.e. Shri Ahlawat had been promoted i.e. 21.5.1976. As per stand taken in the reply, such consideration for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 21.5.1976 was accorded to the petitioner. The post of Executive Engineer is a selection post. As per service record, the petitioner was not found upto the mark on account of having earned two average reports as also adverse reports which had been communicated to him. Such categoric stand contained in SUSHAMA RANI MALIK 2014.09.30 12:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3678 OF 1993 4 para 7 of the written statement filed on behalf of the State has not met with any rebuttal by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner nor has any replication to the written statement been filed.
9. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order dated 21.5.1992 rejecting the claim of the petitioner seeking promotion to the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 21.5.1976.
10. Writ petition is dismissed.
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA )
SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 JUDGE
SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No
SUSHAMA RANI MALIK
2014.09.30 12:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document