Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balbir Singh vs Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited ... on 11 November, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148152
CWP-25289-2018 -1-
213
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
***
CWP-25289-2018
Date of Decision: 11.11.2024
Balbir Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. Rajkapoor Malik, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Advocate,
for the respondents.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari
for setting aside the impugned Memo No.Ch.27/ECP-2421 dated 20.09.2016
(Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.3 whereby the claim of the
petitioner for grant of 2nd ACP has been rejected illegally with a further
prayer to issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to
consider the case of the petitioner for the grant of 2nd ACP w.e.f. 01.01.2006
after the completion of 18 years of regular and satisfactory service on the
post of junior Engineer being fully eligible and entitled as per ACP Rules
framed by the respondent-Department vide office order dated 27.02.2009 for
revision of ACP rules w.e.f. 01.01.2006 (Annexure P-1) in view of the
recommendation made by respondent No.3 vide Annexure P-2.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148152
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer on 10.09.1990 and retired on
31.05.2007 and thereafter vide order dated 06.06.2016, he was granted the
deemed date of promotion as Junior Engineer w.e.f. 08.01.1987 because his
junior, namely, Sh. Om Prakash was earlier promoted on the aforesaid post.
He further submitted that the aforesaid deemed date of promotion was given
to the petitioner and even the arrears of pay were also paid to the petitioner
which is an undisputed position. He also submitted that even vide Annexure
P-2 the grant of 2nd ACP to the petitioner was recommended by the
Superintendent Engineer but the same was not granted to him by way of a
rejection order passed by the Under Secretary with the approval of the Chief
Engineer vide Annexure P-3. He further submitted that once the petitioner
was given the deemed date of promotion w.e.f. 08.01.1987 and he had
completed his 18 years prior to his retirement then he was entitled for 2nd
ACP as well. He also referred to a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in CWP-24313-2013 titled as "Hans Raj Vs. State of Haryana and
others", decided on 19.02.2016, which has been upheld in LPA and
submitted that in the light of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner is entitled
for grant of 2nd ACP as well.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when
the aforesaid recommendation was considered by the office of Chief
Engineer vide Annexure P-3, it was declined but there is no order passed by
the Superintending Engineer and it was only conveyed by the Under
Secretary. He submitted that the aforesaid order Annexure P-3 is absolutely
cryptic and non-speaking order and the same does not give any reason at all
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148152
and therefore, the order (Annexure P-3) is liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, Mr. R.S. Budhwar, learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of 2nd ACP
in view of the fact that he has already exhausted his functional promotion.
He submitted that to the extent the aforesaid order (Annexure P-3) is a non-
speaking order is concerned, the same is apparent from the aforesaid order
and stated that he has no objection in case the concerned competent
authority, who is to decide the grant or non-grant of the 2 nd ACP to the
petitioner, is permitted to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after
hearing the petitioner.
5. A perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-3) would show
that it is absolutely cryptic and a non-speaking order especially in view of
the fact that once the Superintending Engineer has recommended the case of
the petitioner with regard to grant of 2nd ACP, it was a bounded duty of the
competent authority/Chief Engineer to have passed the speaking order in this
regard. It is a settled law that every order has to be backed by reason because
the reasons are the soul of the order.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present
petition is allowed. The impugned order dated (Annexure P-3) is set aside.
The respondent/competent authority is directed to pass a well reasoned
speaking order in accordance with law after granting an adequate
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his counsel within a period of four
months from today and also by referring to the aforesaid judgment passed in
Hans Raj's case (Supra) which has been relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioner.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148152
7. Needless to say that in case the petitioner is found to be entitled
for the aforesaid benefit then the same shall be paid to him within a period of
two months thereafter.
11.11.2024 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
Bhumika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
