Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurcharan Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 9 July, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084920
CWP-895-1998 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
204 CWP-895-1998 (O&M)
Date of Decision :09.07.2024
Gurcharan Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Chandan Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Divij Datt, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. TPS Chawla, Senior DAG, Punjab.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
In the present petition, challenge is to order dated 02.02.1996 (Annexure P/4) by which, the petitioner has been given benefit of retrospective promotion to the post of Inspector Grade-I with effect from 23.05.1991 but was denied benefit of arrears for the said retrospective promotion.
As per the avermnets made in the petition, the petitioner joined as Sub Inspector in the Department of Food and supplies, Punjab on 14.08.1973. In the year 1987, a seniority list was issued by the respondent- department in the cadre of Sub Inspector with regard to the employees, who were eligible for the benefit of promotion to the post of Inspector Grade-I. 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 23-07-2024 05:40:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084920 CWP-895-1998 (O&M) -2- In the said seniority list, though, the name of the petitioner was mentioned at serial No.567 however, in the said list, it was not mentioned that the petitioner belongs to the reserved category of scheduled caste. On the basis of the said seniority list, the respondents made the promotions to the post of Inspector Grade-I in the year 1991.
Keeping in view the fact that certain employees, who belonged to the reserved category of scheduled caste, who were junior to the petitioners had been granted promotion but as the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the reserved category of scheduled caste, he was not promoted. The petitioner made a representation for the grant of promotion to the post of Inspector Grade-I by stating that he also belongs to the reserved category of scheduled caste and, hence, he is also entitled for the benefit of promotion to the post of Inspector Grade-I with effect from the date the employees junior to him were promoted. The respondents considered the claim of the petitioner and vide impugned order dated 02.02.1996 granted the petitioner benefit of retrospective promotion to the post of Inspector Grade-I w.e.f. 23.05.1991 and fixed his salary accordingly but benefit of arrears was denied to him, which grievance is being raised by the petitioner in the present petition.
Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed reply wherein, it has been mentioned that the promotion to the post of Inspector Grade-I was made on the basis of the seniority list wherein, the petitioner was not described as reserved category candidate hence, his name was not considered and ultimately when a representation was filed by the petitioner 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 23-07-2024 05:40:33 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084920 CWP-895-1998 (O&M) -3- in the year 1995, the same was considered and petitioner was granted the benefit of promotion to the post of Inspector Garde-I with retrospective effect from 23.05.1991 but as the petitioner had not actually worked on the promoted post, he had not been granted the benefit of arrears.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance In the present petition, the only issue which is to be adjudicated is whether denial of benefit of promotion to the petitioner to the post of Inspector Grade-I in the year 1991 is due to the inaction on the part of the petitioner or respondents and in case, there was no inaction on the part of the petitioner and the respondents were at fault, then whether the petitioner is entitled for the grant of benefit of arrears on retrospective promotion or not.
From the facts, which have been narrated hereinbefore, it is a conceded position that in the year 1987, a seniority list in the cadre of Inspector was issued. It is also a conceded position that in the said seniority list, petitioner was not described as reserved category candidate. The said seniority list was made operational when the promotions to the post of Inspector Grade-1 were made in the year 1991. From the reply, it is clear that the petitioner made a representation against the said promotion in the year 1995 on the ground that as he also belongs to the reserved category of scheduled caste, he is entitled for the grant of benefit of promotion from the date persons junior to him have been promoted and thereafter, the said seniority list was amended to treat the petitioner as reserved category 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 23-07-2024 05:40:33 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084920 CWP-895-1998 (O&M) -4- candidate and the benefit of promotion was granted to him with effect from the date, the persons junior to him were promoted in the reserved category of scheduled caste but benefit of arrears was denied to him. From the facts, it is clear that though the petitioner is raising claim that he had represented against the said seniority list but reply of the respondents is categoric to say that the petitioner only raised a grievance against the promotion for the first time in the year 1995. Relevant portion of the reply is as under:-
"Contents of this para are denied as the record of this case is approximately 30 years old and same is not available with the respondent department as a fire broke out in the office of respondent no.2 in the year 1995. However, it is submitted that the respondent department vide speaking order dated 09.03.2017 (Annexure P/18) after due consideration clarified that the petitioner has not given any representation/request for the grant of promotion to the post of Inspector Grade-I w.e.f. 05.11.1981. If, the petitioner would have raised any claim at that moment than same could have been decided on merits as his request for incorporating his caste into the seniority list was allowed after consideration."
There is no replication to the said averments made in the reply hence, the said averments of the reply cannot be ignored.
Further, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Haryana Vs. O.P. Gupta and others, 1996 (7) SCC 533 in case, benefit of retrospective promotion is being granted on the basis of amendment in the seniority list, arrears are not to be granted. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under:-
4 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 23-07-2024 05:40:33 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084920
CWP-895-1998 (O&M) -5-
"9. In these appeals unless the seniority list is prepared and finalised and promotions are made in accordance with the Rules on the basis of the above seniority list, the question of entitlement to work in the promotional posts does not arise. Consequently, the payment of arrears of salary does not arise since, admittedly the respondents had not worked during that period. The High Court was, therefore, wholly illegal in directing payment of arrears of salary. The order of the High Court accordingly is quashed."
In the present petition, the seniority list issued in the year 1987 was amended in 1996 to treat the petitioner as reserved category candidate and relief was granted to the petitioner immediately thereafter hence, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in O.P. Gupta (supra), the petitioner cannot be granted the benefit of arrears.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2459-2000 titled as Food Corporation of India vs. S.N. Nagakar decided on 29.01.2002. The said judgment cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner for the reasons that in the said judgment, the petition filed by the petitioner was allowed by the High Court and the benefits were granted, which were accepted by the Corporation and when the said judgment was sought to be executed, with the grant of arrears, the order passed in execution was challenged and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that once the basic order remains valid for the grant of arrears, the same cannot be denied as the executing Court cannot go beyond the decree.
Keeping in view the above, as the petitioner also did not remain diligent in exercising his right over the seniority list issued in the year 1987 wherein, he was described as general category candidate till 1991, when 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 23-07-2024 05:40:33 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084920 CWP-895-1998 (O&M) -6- promotions were effected, no ground for the grant of benefit of arrears is made out and hence, the present petition is accordingly dismissed.
Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed of.
July 09, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 23-07-2024 05:40:33 :::