Partly allowed

Paramjit Singh Basra v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Apr 2010CWP/1087/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging a rejection of a promotion claim due to missing Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), the High Court noted that ACRs had allegedly been sent timely. The court quashed the department order, directing verification of receipt and re-convening the promotion committee to reconsider the claim if reports were found received on time.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; quashing of impugned order dated 24.1.2007; directive to verify receipt of ACRs and re-convene the Departmental Promotion Committee to reconsider the promotion claim within six

Paramjit Singh Basra Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.1087 of 2008 Date of Decision : April 05, 2010.

¶3

Paramjit Singh Basra ..... Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents

¶4

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶5

Present : Mr.S.S.Grewal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab.

¶6

-.-

¶7

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶8

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶9

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶10

(Oral) Surya Kant, J.

¶11

The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 24.1.2007 (Annexure P-9) whereby his representation dated 28.7.2003 containing claim for promotion as Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 1.2.2002, has been turned down on the ground that his annual confidential reports for the years 1998-99, 1999-2000 being not available, the said period was treated as “No Report Certificate” and in the absence of these reports, the Departmental Promotion Committee considered his claim on the basis of three ACRs only.

¶12

Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit, reiterating that due to “nonreceipt” of the annual confidential reports of the petitioner for the above

¶13

C.W.P.No .1087 of 2008 2

¶14

mentioned period, that the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 14.1.2001 followed the guidelines dated 23.11.1990 and considered his claim only on the basis of three instead of five ACRs of the preceding years. The respondents have further averred that upon verification of the records, it has been found that the concerned Superintending Engineer Sh.J.P.Chander, had not sent the ACR of the petitioner for the period w.e.f. 1.4.1998 to 31.8.1998.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records.

¶16

The guidelines dated 23.11.1990 issued by the State Government provide the following criteria to be adhered to by the Departmental Promotion Committee:-

¶17

“(b) The DPC should assess the suitability of the officer for promotion on the basis of their service record and with particular reference to the CRs for 5 preceding years. However, in cases where the required qualifying service is more than 5 years, the DPC should see record with particular reference to the CRs i.e., the years equal to the required qualifying service (If more than one CR has been written for particular year, all the CRs for the relevant year shall be considered together as the CR for one year.”

¶18

It is true that the guidelines further provides that in case the confidential reports are not available, the Departmental Promotion Committee should take the ACRs of the lower grade into account to complete the number of ACRs required to be considered. The alternative mode of consideration to be followed by the DPC does not clothe the authorities with an unfettered power to act arbitrarily and not to complete

¶19

C.W.P.No .1087 of 2008 3

¶20

the service record of an official who is in the zone of consideration for further promotion. It is obligatory upon the administrative authorities to act timely and update the service record, unless the delay or inaction is attributable to the employee concerned like non-submission of SelfAppraisal Report.

¶21

It is the categorically pleaded case of the petitioner that ACRS for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 were written and sent by the Reporting Officer in time. Since the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 14.1.2001, the ACR for the year 20002001 which pertains to the period upto 31.3.2001, could not have been taken into account. However, the ACRs for the years 1998-1999 and 19992000 were of the relevant period and their availability would have enabled the DPC to consider the petitioner's claim in a fair and non-discriminating manner.

¶22

In order to demonstrate that his annual confidential reports for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 were timely dispatched, the petitioner has placed on record the letter dated 29.5.2002 (Annexure P-4) sent by the Superintending Engineer, PWD (B&R) Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar Cantt, suggesting that the petitioner's confidential reports for different periods were sent as follow:-

¶23

“ Confidential Report	Letter No.& date
1.4.1998 to 31.8.1998	1114/A dated 31.8.1998
1.9.1998 to 31.3.1999	994 dated 20.7.1999
1.6.1999 to 31.3.2000	816 dated 4.4.2000
1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001	38 dated 3.4.2001.”

¶24

C.W.P.No .1087 of 2008 4

¶25

The aforesaid letter indicates that both the confidential reports were sent well in advance in the years 1998, 1999 and April, 2000, i.e., much prior to 14.1.2001 when the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was held. The Competent Authority, therefore, ought to have ensured the attachment of these ACRs with the service records of the petitioner before convening the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee, unless the reports were not available for the reasons beyond the control of the Competent Authority.

¶26

For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned order dated 24.1.2007 (Annexure P-9) cannot sustain and the same is hereby quashed. The respondent No.1 is directed to verify as to whether or not the ACRs of the petitioner for the years 199899 (in two parts i.e. 1.4.1998 to 31.7.1998 and 1.8.1998 to 31.3.1999) and for the year 1999-2000 were received vide Memos dated 31.8.1998, 20.7.1999 and 4.4.2000, as mentioned in the letter Annexure P-4. If it is found that the aforesaid ACRs had been received well in time, it is directed that the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee will be reconvened and the claim of the petitioner for retrospective promotion as on 14.1.2001 shall be re-considered. It is further directed that if a subsequent DPC has been held on 13.12.2001 and/or thereafter but before the petitioner's retirement, the ACR for the year 2000-01 shall also be taken into consideration to re-consider the petitioner's claim as on those dates of the subsequent DPCs.

¶27

C.W.P.No .1087 of 2008 5

¶28

The needful shall be down within a period of six months from

¶29

the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶30

Dasti.

¶31

April 05, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE

Paramjit Singh Basra v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramjit Singh Basra v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Pal Vs State of Pb.

Karamjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Keshwa Nand and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Subhash Chander Syal Vs State of Pb.Etc.

Rampyari Vs State of Pb. & Ors.

Mohinder Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.