Dismissed

Gali Chand v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Aug 2010CWP/13502/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired employee challenged the rejection of his claim for higher pay and retrospective appointment after he was found ineligible since promotion takes effect from the date of approval, not the date of vacancy. The court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Claim for grant of benefit of higher pay and appointment on Higher Administrative Grade from the date of vacancy rejected.

Gali Chand Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.13502-CAT of 2010 Date of decision: August 02, 2010

Gail Chand

.. Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India and others

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal

¶9

Present: Mr. G.S. Bal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?

¶11

A.N. Jindal, J

¶12

Gail Chand has sought issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 4.5.2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by the respondent No.5 whereby his claim for grant of benefit of higher pay to the post of Principal General Manager for the period 1.4.2004 to 31.10.2005 during which he had officiated as a Principal General Manager was decined.

¶13

According to the petitioner he became eligible and qualified to be promoted to the post of Higher Administrative Grade (HAG) of Indian Telecom Services (ITS) Group-A in the year 2004. However, his promotion was delayed as DPC was convened on 1.4.2005 wherein his name was recommended for regular promotion. The Appointments Committee of Cabinet (for brevity, 'ACC') granted approval to the DPC recommendations on 19.5.2006. Since he was superannuated w.e.f. 31.7.2005, therefore, he could not be promoted on the said post. Now he seeks to be appointed on the Higher Administrative Grade from the date when the vacancy existed.

¶14

There is no denying a fact that he was not promoted on the date he became eligible or from the date when the vacancy existed, but he could only be promoted with effect from the date when his name was cleared by the ACC for the promotional post. It was observed in case Union of India v. K.K. Vadera and others, 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 625 that there is no rule or law under which a promotion is to be made effective from the date of

¶15

-2-

¶16

Civil Writ Petition No. 13502-CAT of 2010

¶17

¶18

creation of promotional post. After a post falls vacant for any reason whatsoever, a promotion to that post should be from the date of promotion and not from the date when posts fall vacant. While relying upon the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court in a recent judgment rendered in the case of Nirmal Chandra Sinha v. Union of India and others, 2008 (2) SCT 675 observed as under :-

¶19

“7. It has been held in a series of decisions of this Court that a promotion takes effect from the date of being granted and not from the date of occurrence of vacancy or creation of post vide Union of India and others v. K.K. Vadera and others, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 625, State of Uttranchal and another v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, 2007 (1) SCT 393 : 2007 (1) SCC 683, K.V. Subba Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1988 (2) SCC 201, Sanjay K. Sinha and others v. State of Bihar and others, 2004 (3) SCT 512 : 2004 (10) SCC 734 etc.”

¶20

The petitioner was never promoted to the Higher Administrative Grade post but he was deployed to work on that post with a specific mention that he would draw a salary in the Senior Administrative Grade. As such, he certainly does not become entitled to be promoted from the date he started working over it. It is also well settled by now that a retired employee could be said to have vested grievance if any of his junior had been granted promotion prior to the date of his superannuation, but he could not complain for retrospective promotion when it was not ordered during his service.

¶21

Consequently, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed in limine.

¶22

(M.M. Kumar) (A.N. Jindal) Judge Judge

¶23

August 02, 2010 deepak

Gali Chand v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gali Chand v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seema Bains Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dinesh Kumar & Ors. Vs P.G.I of Medical Edu. & Research, Chd. & Ors.

Shiv Kumar Vs Presiding Officer and Ors.

State of Haryana and Ors. Vs Jai Bhagwan

Bal Kishan Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M.L.Bansal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.