O&M) ran Singh v. State of Punjab and othe d others CWP
Case Details
CWP-109-20 CWP-15899 2006 (O&M) 5899-2005 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA UNJAB & HARYANA AT IN TH GARH CHANDIGARH 885 Date of decision: 03.05.2025 CWP-109-20 Gurcharan Si 2006 (O&M) ran Singh vs. State of Punjab and othe d others CWP-15899 Bishamber D 5899-2005 (O&M) ber Dass vs. State of Punjab and other d others CORAM: H
Legal Reasoning
M: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMA AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate cate Ms. Preetleen Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. and Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punj **** , Punjab. AMAN CHA CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. These cases involve similar iss lar issues and therefore, are being
Decision
disposed of t ed of together and for the sake of brev of brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP- -15899-2005. 2. The petitioner was granted o ted one additional increment on completion tion of 16 years of service as Carpen arpenter w.e.f. 01.04.2002 instead of 01.04.200 04.2001 under the ACP Scheme, on , on the premise of there being average ACR e ACRs, which though were not even even conveyed to him, as has been admitted in p ed in para 9 and 10 of the written st tten statement and thus, could not have been tak een taken into consideration. 3. In Dr. Gurdev Singh Bhardw ardwaj vs. State of Punjab and others 2013 2013(1) RSJ 474, while placing re cing reliance on the judgment of ASHOK KUMAR 2025.05.05 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-109-20 CWP-15899 2006 (O&M) 5899-2005 (O&M) -2- Hon’ble the le the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v utt vs. Union of India (2008) 8 SCC 725, , against which LPA has been been dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2012, 012, it was held that ACRs not c not conveyed require to be dis- regarded and ed and re-determination to be made, made, relevant paras thereof read thus: ASHOK KUMAR 2025.05.05 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document to be conveyed e dictum laid down by the Apex “12. Following the dict at the average report relating to the Court, it is clear that the ch clearly had an adverse effect year 2005-06 which cle ation of the petitioner for purposes insofar as consideration o of promotion to the hig e higher post of Senior Medical to him. uired Officer, was required eld that the ACR for the year 2005- Accordingly, it is held tha n communicated to the petitioner 06 having not been com nored while determining the bench was liable to be ignored mark. find that the respondent-authorities 13. That apart, I find th ily in not considering the ACR of have acted arbitrarily in he year 2007-08. The right of an the petitioner for the yea considered for promotion is a employee to be consid nder Article 16 of the Constitution fundamental right under A ust a right of consideration but, in of India. It is not just a r cast upon the employer to afford a fact, an obligation cast up to an employee in terms of the fair consideration to an ice jurisprudence. It has been j principles of service petitioner had been graded 'very admitted that the petitio 2007-08 and such report had been good' for the year 2007 was not available at the time of duly received but was n agenda the agenda preparation of otion Committee. This cannot be a Departmental Promotion the petitioner the grading in terms basis for denying to the p umbers for such 'very good' report of assigning three number for the year 2007-08. 14. Learned counsel a would bring to my notice retired on 29.2.2012, h superannuation. 15. Accordingly, I all terms of directing the r consider the claim of the nsel appearing for the petitioner notice that the petitioner has since 12, having attained the age of I allow the present petition in the respondent-authorities to re- of the petitioner for promotion to submitted before CWP-109-20 CWP-15899 2006 (O&M) 5899-2005 (O&M) -3- the post of Senior Me determining the bench m ACR for the year 2005- account the five previous 09, 2007-08, 2006-07, 2 further directed that if in which shall be concluded three months from the d copy of this order, the p bench mark, then orders s petitioner to the post of notional basis. The pet would also be held entitle the post of Senior Medica superannuation and wou pensionary/retiral benefits or Medical Officer in terms of nch mark afresh by ignoring the -06 and in terms of taking into vious ACRs i.e. for the years 2008- 07, 2004-05 and 2003-04. It is t if in pursuance to such exercise, luded positively within a period of the date of receipt of a certified the petitioner fulfils the requisite rders shall be issued promoting the st of Senior Medical Officer on a e petitioner in such eventuality entitled to notional pay fixation on edical Officer as on the date of his d would be released the revised enefits accordingly.” 4. Hon’ble the Supreme Cour Court allowed the appeal in Rukhsana S ana Shaheen Khan vs. Union o ion of India and others 2019(1) Apex Court Court Judgments (SC) 231, observin serving that the uncommunicated Annual Conf l Confidential Reports (ACRs), which which are adverse to the appellant, should have have been relied upon for the purp e purpose of consideration of the appellant for nt for promotion, in view of the decis e decision of this Court in Sukhdev Singh Vs. U Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in rted in (2013) 9 SCC 566, and thus directed the d the competent authority to ignore t nore the uncommunicated adverse ACRs and ta and take a fresh decision in accord ccordance with law, affording an opportunity o unity of hearing in the process to the ap the appellant. 5. The aforesaid facts having be ing been brought out, during the course of he of hearing, learned State counsel, on sel, on instructions, states that the respondents dents shall re-examine the matter an and decide afresh, taking into account the t the aforesaid judgments and ign d ignoring the uncommunicated ASHOK KUMAR 2025.05.05 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-109-20 CWP-15899 2006 (O&M) 5899-2005 (O&M) -4- ACR(s), wit within a period of 6 months, , uninfluenced by the orders impugned in ned in the present case, which this Co this Court has no reason to believe the authoritie horities would not address in a just, fai ust, fair and reasonable manner. 6. 7. The aforesaid satisfies the learne learned counsel for the petitioner. The matter stands disposed osed of accordingly and if the petitioner is f ner is found entitled, grant the benefit enefit forthwith. Needless to say, if the orders a ders are adverse to his interest, the t, the same may be passed after granting opp g opportunity of hearing to him him and shall contain reasons, whereupon h pon he shall be free to seek legal redre l redress thereupon. 8. Photocopy of this order be place placed on the connected file. 03.05.2025 ashok (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE Whether Whether hether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No : Yes / No hether reportable ASHOK KUMAR 2025.05.05 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document