Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan Chand vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 19 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
207
CWP-12588 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 19.01.2023
Krishan Chand ..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Inayat Khullar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Maninder Singh, DAG, Punjab
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. The prayer is to issue an appropriate writ to quash the order
dated 03.05.2012 by which the petitioner's pay has been fixed as a Class-IV
employee. The petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation retired on
31.07.2009 after he was appointed as a helper in the Department of
Agriculture, Punjab. While filing Civil Suit No.13/06.01.1987 which was
decreed on 05.06.1987, he was held entitled to be promoted as the
Agriculture Sub Inspector. However, in the first appeal, the judgment was
modified and the directions were issued to the State of Punjab to consider
the petitioner's claim for promotion to the Class-III post. The operative part
of the order passed by the First Appellate Court on 08.12.1987 is extracted
as under:-
"The State of Punjab is directed to consider the name of
the plaintiff respondent Krishan Chand for promotion to
class III posts existing in the department of falling vacant
in the near future including the post of Bio-gas Mechanic
in terms of the instructions of the government Ex.P1 16
on the record of the case.
With this modification in the judgment and decree,
there is no merit in this appeal and the same stands
dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs
throughout. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned
to the record room."
1 of 2
CWP-12588 of 2012 (O&M) -2-
2. The department found that in accordance with the relevant
service rules, the petitioner is not entitled to promotion as an Agriculture
Sub Inspector. However, since he was permitted to work as Agriculture Sub
Inspector, as a result, he was sought to be reverted. He filed Civil Writ
Petition No.6853 of 1991, in which interim protection was granted.
However, the same was dismissed on 25.05.2011.
4. The learned counsel representing the petitioner does not dispute
that the petitioner has been paid the pay scales of Agriculture Sub Inspector
during the period he has worked as such.
5. The learned counsel representing the petitioner has failed to
draw the attention of the court to the service rules which entitle the helper to
be considered for promotion as the Agriculture Sub Inspector. However, he
submits that as per the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, the
petitioner is entitled to promotion as the Agriculture Sub Inspector. As is
evident from the reading of the judgment passed by the First Appellate
Court, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was modified and
the State of Punjab was only directed to consider the case of the petitioner
for promotion, which on such consideration has been rejected by the State.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to issue the writ
as prayed for, is made out.
7. Dismissed.
8. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
January 19, 2023 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
