Punjab-Haryana High Court
K L Aggarwal vs Uhbvnl on 12 September, 2014
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Arun Palli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 1221 of 2014
DATE OF DECISION : 12.09.2014
K.L. Aggarwal
.... APPELLANT
Versus
The Utter Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Panchkula
.... RESPONDENT
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Present : Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate,
for the appellant.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) K.L. Aggarwal has filed this intra court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated May 01, 2014, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 7370 of 2007) filed by the appellant seeking quashing of the order/communication dated March 08, 2007 (Annexure P-14) finding the appellant not fit for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer with effect from November 13, 1996, has been dismissed.
It is a matter of fact that the appellant was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer with effect from June 12, 1998 and now, he has also retired from service in the year 2003. His grouse is that keeping in view his service record, he should have been promoted to the post of DASS NAROTAM 2014.09.16 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA No. 1221 of 2014 -2- Superintending Engineer with effect from November 13, 1996, when his juniors were promoted. It has not been disputed during the course of arguments that promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer is a selection post and is to be filled while taking into consideration the fact that the officer must be of outstanding ability. And considered for promotion is on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.
Before the learned Single Judge, the case of the appellant was that when he and his juniors were considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, the appellant was having to his credit 70% good ACRs. In spite of this fact, he was ignored and his juniors were promoted finding them more meritorious. On the other hand, the respondent contested the claim of the appellant on the ground that the entire work and conduct of the appellant was seen and he was not found fit for promotion on merits, because several punishments were inflicted upon him and certain adverse observations were made with regard to his conduct in the ACRs. The learned Single Judge, after considering the respective contentions of the counsel for the parties and going through the record as well as the relevant Rules, dismissed the writ petition while observing as under :-
"From perusal of abovesaid Rule, it is clear that promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer is to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The case of the petitioner is that he was awarded good in 70% of his ACRs and at the time of consideration, he was suitable for promotion w.e.f. 13.11.1996. The ACR for the year 1988-89 which was recorded as "below average" was set aside DASS NAROTAM 2014.09.16 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA No. 1221 of 2014 -3- by this Court in CWP No. 8098 of 1997, wherein, it was ordered to be treated as 'Good'. The stand of the respondent is that not only ACR for the year 1988-89 was average but the petitioner was awarded other punishments as well. The matter of promotion was put before Board of Directors and the petitioner was not found fit for promotion w.e.f. 13.11.1996 and was promoted w.e.f. 12.6.1998. The petitioner claims his right of promotion as Superintending Engineer w.e.f. the date his juniors have been promoted i.e. 13.11.1996. The petitioner did not attend his duties from 20.10.1995 to 23.10.1995 due to strike of Board employees and adverse remarks were recorded against him. Not only because of above adverse remarks, the petitioner was not promoted but the petitioner was also punished for various lapses committed by him during the service period of ten years including stoppage of two increments vide order dated 8.6.1995 and his four increments in the year 1994. The remarks of disloyalty, inadequate devotion to duty and insubordination were recorded in the ACR for the year 1995-96 as he did not join his duties during the period of strike of Board employees. It shows that the petitioner was not considered rightly for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case."
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that Rule 6 (d) of the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Electrical) Regulations, 1965 was amended and the amendment therein has not been noticed by the learned Single Judge. We have seen the amendment. This amendment does not make any change in the criteria i.e. that post of Superintending Engineer is to be filled by selection process and the same is to be made on the principle of seniority-cum-merit. It is also not disputed DASS NAROTAM 2014.09.16 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA No. 1221 of 2014 -4- that the Rule that an officer must be of outstanding ability has also not been changed. Therefore, in our opinion, if slight amendment is made, that does not effect the present case. As per the instructions of the Government dated April 13, 1972, each officer/official has to be judged on the basis of ability, industry, personality, bearing experience and aptitude. In the present case, the appellant was considered for promotion on November 13, 1996, but because of various lapses and punishments given to him, as have been mentioned in the impugned order, he was not promoted and his juniors were promoted finding them more meritorious. Subsequently, after about one and half years, on June 12, 1998, he was also promoted to the post. Thus, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
No merit. Dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
September 12, 2014 ( ARUN PALLI )
ndj JUDGE
DASS NAROTAM
2014.09.16 14:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document