Allowed

Mani Ram v. State of Pb.Etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Feb 2010CWP/14802/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued an order allowing a writ petition by a retired Sub Divisional Engineer seeking to quash an order that rescinded his earlier confirmation date. The court held the action violated principles of natural justice due to lack of prior notice and hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 11.11.1993 quashed; liberty to respondents to pass appropriate order after hearing within 4 months.

Mani Ram Vs State of Pb.Etc. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.14802 of 1993 Date of Decision : February 16, 2010.

Mani Ram

..... Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab

..... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶9

Present : Mr.S.D.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab.

¶10

-.-

¶11

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

¶12

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶16

The petitioner, at the time of filing of this writ petition, was serving as a Sub Divisional Engineer in the Public Health Department, Government of Punjab. He is said to have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. He seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 11.11.1993 (Annexure P-6) whereby his date of confirmation has been rescinded without any show cause notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to him.

¶17

Suffice it to observe that the petitioner joined the Department as a Junior Engineer on 19.12.1969 and he was confirmed w.e.f.

¶18

C.W.P.No .14802 of 1993 2

¶19

27.11.1978. Thereafter, on an appeal preferred by him, his date of confirmation was pre-poned to 8.6.1976. While the petitioner was representing the authorities to grant him the consequential benefits, namely, seniority and promotion on the basis of corrected date of confirmation, the respondent served him with the impugned order whereby the date of his confirmation as 8.6.1976 was rescinded and as a necessary consequence, the petitioner appears to have been treated as a confirmed J.E. w.e.f. 27.11.1978 only.

¶20

It may be observed here that based upon the earlier date of confirmation, the petitioner had earlier filed Civil Writ Petition No.10922 of 1988 in which the respondents had conceded in principle his claim for regular promotion subject to approval by the Service Commission, which was received later on.

¶21

The confirmation is a valuable right of an employee especially when the seniority is also to be assigned from the date of such confirmation. That being so, the respondents could not have adversely changed the date of confirmation of the petitioner without observing the principles of natural justice, namely, a show-cause notice ought to have been served upon him. No such exercise has been undertaken by the respondents. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable on this count alone.

¶22

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.11.1993 (Annexure P-6) is hereby quashed, however, with a liberty to the respondents to pass an appropriate order in accordance with

¶23

C.W.P.No .14802 of 1993 3

¶24

law and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Needless to say that in case the respondent does not wish to pass any order, in that eventuality, the case of the petitioner for promotion from due date on the basis of the confirmation i.e. on 8.6.1976 shall be considered and appropriate order shall be passed preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

Dasti.

16-02-2010

Mohinder

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

Mani Ram v. State of Pb.Etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani Ram v. State of Pb.Etc.

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

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs Mohinder Kaur

Baldev Singh Virk Vs State of Punjab and Others

Kulmohan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Harpal Singh Chhina Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Bharat Bhushan Vs State of Punjab

Krishan Dev Vs State of Punjab and Ors.