Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljit Singh Ubhi vs State Of Punjab And Others on 16 December, 2022
CWP No. 18859 of 2019 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 18859 of 2019 (O&M)
Reserved on: November 21, 2022
Pronounced on: 16.12.2022
Baljit Singh Ubhi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present:- Ms. Saguna Arora, Advocate, for
Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sehajbir Singh Aulakh, AAG, Punjab.
JAISHREE THAKUR, J.
1. The petitioner herein by way of instant writ petition seeks
issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing order dated
16.5.2019 (Annexure P/8) with a further prayer for direction to the
respondents to grant benefit of pay fixation to the petitioner from the date of
his retrospective promotion w.e.f. 01.02.2012.
2. The brief facts of the case are that initially the petitioner was
appointed as Draftsman (Mechanical) with respondent No.3 on 24.1.1984
and was promoted as Instructor on 15.7.1985 and as Lecturer on
01.10.1991. The petitioner was given additional charge of the post of Head
of the Mechanic and Engineering Department on 9.5.2011. One Sushil
Kumar Prabhakar, who was holding the regular post of Head of the
Mechanical Engineering Department retired from service on 31.01.2012 and
1 of 5
the petitioner being the senior most was looking after the charge of Head of
the Mechanical Engineering Department and became entitled to his regular
promotion w.e.f. 01.02.2012. However, the regular promotion as Head of
the Mechanical Engineering Department was delayed without any
justification and the same was allowed only on 22.1.2013 (P-2). Thereafter,
entitlement of the petitioner for his retrospective promotion from due date
i.e. 01.02.2012 was considered and the same was accepted, vide subsequent
order dated 6.5.2014 (P-3). As is apparent the petitioner was discharging
the duties of Head of the Department w.e.f. 01.02.2012, after the retirement
of Shri S.K. Prabhakar, therefore, the petitioner requested for fixation of his
pay on his promotional post w.e.f. 01.02.2012 and for grant of
consequential benefits. The request of the petitioner was accepted by
respondent No.3 and his case was forwarded to respondent No.2 for
approval, which was returned on the ground that there is no such rule of the
department for fixation of pay of an employee with retrospective effect.
3. On 23.04.2019, respondent No. 3, while referring the cases of
one Shri Varinder Paul Singh and Jasvir Singh, employees of the same
Institution, who were allowed the similar benefit of fixation of pay and
salary on their retrospective promotion in CWP No. 11054 and 11118 of
2016 decided on 30.5.2016, again sent the case of the petitioner for fixation
of his pay w.e.f. 01.02.2012, but respondent No.2, vide impugned order
dated 16.05.2019, declined the same on the ground that there is no rule in
the department for fixation of pay from back date. Hence the instant writ
petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the case of
2 of 5
the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgments passed by this Court in
CWP No. 11054 of 2016 titled Varinder Paul Singh Versus state of
Punjab and others decided on 30.5.2016 and CWP No. 11118 of 2016
titled Jasvir Singh Versus State of Punjab and others decided on
30.5.2016. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected
on frivolous ground that there is no rule in the department for fixation of
pay from back date, whereas this Court in Varinder Paul Singh's case
(supra) has clearly held that once the Government has already granted the
promotion substantively to a person retrospectively, then the pay of the said
employee in the regular pay scale has to be fixed from that particular date
and not from the actual date of promotion.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
would argue that the case of the petitioner for promotion and back dated
promotion was not put up and was not considered by the Sub-Committee.
As such the promotion was not done as per Grant-in-Code. Therefore, it is
clear that the promotion/retrospective promotion of the petitioner has not
been recommended by the Director, Technical Education & Industrial
Training--respondent No.2. The retrospective promotion was given by the
College at its own level. It is also submitted that the judgments rendered in
Varinder Paul Singh and Jasvir Singh's cases (Supra) are not applicable
to the present case as in the said cases the benefit of promotion from back
date was given by the Management.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
through the record.
3 of 5
7. In Varinder Paul Singh's case (supra), this Court, while
dealing with the similar circumstances, held as under:-
"...If the competent authority is of the view that there are no
instructions which grant benefits of promotion from back date
or the benefits can accrue only from the date of joining, he is
sadly mistaken. During the period in question the petitioner
held the officiating charge of the post of Principal. It is a priori
that once the Government has already granted the promotion
substantively w.e.f June 2, 2014 then the pay of the petitioner in
the regular pay scale of the post of Principal has to be fixed
from June 2, 2014 and not from the actual date of the
promotion order and accordingly, the last pay certificate is
required to be drawn in the promotional pay scale of the higher
post. Therefore, the first two bullets in the letter dated May 27,
2015 suffer from patent errors in reasoning and deserve to be
set aside and the path restored to justice.
xx xx xx
The petitioner would also be entitled to difference of arrears of
salary for discharging full duties and responsibilities of the
post of Principal from June 2, 2014 till he was actually
promoted vide order dated April 22, 2015 retrospectively from
June 2, 2014 in view of the law in Smt. P.Grover v. State of
Haryana, AIR 1983 SC 1060 : 1983 SCR (3) 654."
In the present case, the petitioner has already been given promotion with
retrospective effect i.e. from 01.02.2012, the date from which he was
actually discharging the duties of Head of the Department independently.
Once he was given promotion w.e.f. 01.02.2012, it is unjustified on the part
of the respondents to deny him the fixation of his pay from the back date.
The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court
4 of 5
in Varinder Paul Singh's case (supra).
8. Consequently, the instant writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 16.5.2019 (Annexure P/8) is set aside. A direction is
issued to the respondents to refix the pay and allowances of the petitioner
w.e.f, 01.02.20212 in terms of the promotion order with all consequential
benefits. Fresh orders be passed within one month from date of supply of
this order and the monetary benefits be calculated and paid within the next
one month.
December 16, 2022 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
prem JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
5 of 5
