Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab National Bank & Ors vs S.S. Ahluwalia on 21 January, 2025
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008547-DB
204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
43-2017 (O&M)
LPA-43
Date of Decision: 21.01.2025
Punjab National Bank and others ...Appellants
Vs.
S.S. Ahluwalia ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MRS.
MR JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present Mr. Saurav Verma, Advocate for the appellant
appellants.
Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate for the respondent.
***
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the
learned Single Judge dated 16.11.2016,
16.11.2016, whereby the learned Single Judge has
directed as follows: -
"In view of these facts and circumstances, Annexure P
"In P-8
8 is set
aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the
petitioner's name for promotion to the post of Middle
Management Grade Scale-II
Scale II and promote him retrospectively
from the date his juniors were promoted. However, petitioner is
not entitled to monetary benefits since he has re
retired
tired from
service in the month of April, 2007 and he has not worked in the
promotional post. Therefore, notional pay fixation be made and
re fixation of his pension and other retiral benefits as per Rules
re-fixation
while disbursing monetary benefits also within a pperiod
eriod of six
months from today."
today.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that earlier the writ
petitioner had preferred a writ petition challenging the adverse remarks
1 of 4
LPA-43-2017 Neutral
(O&M Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008547-DB
entered in his ACR for the year 1989-90, with a prayer to consider him for
promotion. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated
10.02.2011, by holding that:-
"The petitioner's claim is that he had applied for medical leave
whereas the respondents would maintain that he had been
absent. It would be for the respondents to consider this fact
whether the assessment for the relevant period could have been
made in respect of the petitioner or not. If the petitioner
succeeds in his appeal and this report is interfered in any
manner, the respondents would consider the case of the
petitioner for promotion by excluding the same report from
consideration. If the appeal is rejected, then the process of
reconsideration may not be needed. This should not be taken to
mean that this Court has expressed any opinion in regard to the
validity of this report. It would in the discretion of the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance
with law and pass any appropriate order. If the appeal filed by
the petitioner is decided against him, he would be at liberty to
raise the challenge against the order so passed, in accordance
with law."
Learned counsel further states the case of the writ petitioner was
reconsidered and examined by the Chairman and it was held that the
petitioner was awarded adverse remarks for the year 1989-90 taking into
consideration his work performance for the period from 01.01.1989 to
04.02.1989 and also that he could not have been promoted in terms of the
erstwhile New Bank of India Promotion Policy. The order passed by the
Chairman in compliance with the earlier judgment of this Court, was a
2 of 4
LPA-43-2017 Neutral
(O&M Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008547-DB
subject matter of challenge before this Court in the present petition, wherein,
the petitioner introduced a completely new story that the adverse remarks for
the year 1989-90 was un-communicated and, therefore, the same could not be
taken into consideration for denying him promotion for the year 1991 and
1993.
3. We find that the petitioner had not taken such a contention in the
first round of litigation which he had initially filed in the year 1993. It is also
to be noticed that the ACR for the year 1989-90 was duly communicated and
appeal against which was also filed by him on 30.11.1992 and the same was
rejected on the ground that it had been filed after a period of 45 days. Thus, it
is not a case where the adverse remarks in the ACR was not communicated to
the concerned individual. The judgment passed in the case of Abhijit Ghosh
Dastidar vs. Union of India and others 2009 (16) SCC 146 and Sukhdev
Singh vs. Union of India and others 2013 (4) SCT 129, would therefore,
have no application to the facts of the present case.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, however,
submits that the petitioner was entitled for consideration of promotion as the
adverse remark was downgraded from the earlier year. He also submits that
the adverse remark was wrongly entered.
5. We have considered the submissions.
6. The writ petitioner has already retired way back in the year
2007. No one has a right of promotion. So far as ACR for the year 1989-90 is
concerned, we are satisfied that the same was duly communicated to the writ
petitioner.
7. In view thereto, the reasoning and findings arrived at by the
learned Single Judge based on the sole contention that the ACR for the year
1989-90 was not communicated, would have to be ignored. Accordingly, the
3 of 4
LPA-43-2017 Neutral
(O&M Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008547-DB
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is, therefore, not sustainable in
law and the same is accordingly set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
8. All pending misc. application(s) also stand disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE
(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
JUDGE
21.01.2025
rajesh
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No
4 of 4
