Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rabinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 1 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061203
CWP-10066 of 2017 (O&M) 1 2024:PHHC:061203
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
213 CWP-10066 of 2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision:01.05.2024
Rabinder Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
****
Present: Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amarpreet Singh Bains, AAG, Punjab
****
AMAN CHAUDHARY J. (Oral)
CM-7419 of 2024
For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed
and the order dated 11.06.2015, Annexure P-12 is taken on record, subject to
all just exceptions.
Main case
1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the impugned order dated 18.04.2017, Annexure P-11, whereby the
claim of the petitioner for granting him retrospective promotion on the post
of Joint Director (Feed and Fodder) w.e.f. 01.09.2012 has been declined.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061203
CWP-10066 of 2017 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:061203
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer of the
petitioner for grant of retrospective promotion to the post of Joint Director
(Feed and Fodder) w.e.f. 01.09.2012 amenates from the judgment passed in
CWP No.9325 of 2011, titled Madan Lal and others vs. State of Punjab
and others, decided on 25.04.2013 wherein a direction had been issued to
the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner as also other similarly
placed employees who fulfil the requisite experience for consideration to the
post of Joint Director (Feed and Fodder) and pass orders, which was upheld
by Hon'ble the Division Bench in LPA No.1413 of 2013, decided on
07.02.2014, Annexure P-2, whereafter while implementing the directions the
petitioner who has been given promotion but from 10.02.2014 instead of
01.09.2012 while the similarly circumstanced two persons namely Avtar
Singh and Surinder Kumar have been granted from the date from which they
were eligible and thus claiming i.e. 01.07.2002 vide order dated 11.06.2015,
Annexure P-12, after they had retired on attaining the age of superannuation
in the years 2005 and 2007 respectively. Learned counsel on instructions,
submits that the petitioners shall be satisfied if a time bound direction is
given to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioners keeping in
view the aforesaid facts.
3. Learned State counsel has no objection to the limited prayer
made.
4. In view of the above and without commenting on the merits of
the case, this petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to the
respondents to decide claim of the petitioner keeping in view the submissions
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061203
CWP-10066 of 2017 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:061203
made and the judgment as referred to hereinabove, within a period of 6
months, which this Court has no reason to believe the authorities would not
address in a just, fair and reasonable manner. Upon doing so, after notice and
hearing offered to him and if found entitled, grant the benefit forthwith.
Needless to say, if the orders are adverse to their interest, the same shall
contain reasons and the petitioner shall be free to seek legal redress
thereupon.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
May 01, 2024
dinesh
Whether speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
