Allowed

Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Apr 2010CWP/16277/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil surgeon challenged the delay in granting a higher pay scale effective 1.1.2002. The Court found that while two service records showed 'Good' ratings, others were missing. Holding the missing records treated as favorable and no prejudice caused to the State, the petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner entitled to pay scale Rs.10025-15100 w.e.f. 1.1.2002 with arrears to be paid within four months of order receipt.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.16277 of 2008 Date of Decision : April 20, 2010.

¶3

Dr.Balbir Singh ..... Petitioner

¶4

versus

¶5

State of Punjab and others

¶6

..... Respondents

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶8

Present : Mr.Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab.

¶9

-.-

¶10

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

¶11

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

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

¶13

(Oral) Surya Kant, J.

¶14

The petitioner is a member of the Punjab Civil Medical Services-I. He joined as a Medical Officer on 6.1.1997. Admittedly, he was entitled to be considered for placement in the higher pay scale of Rs.10025-15100 w.e.f. 1.1.2002. but the said pay scale has been granted to him w.e.f. 1.1.2005. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶15

The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit and in preliminary submission No.3 thereof, they have stated as follows:-

¶16

“That the petitioner joined service on 6.1.1997 and had completed four years of regular service on 5.1.2002 and as such his case was to be considered for granting him placement in higher scale of Rs.10025-15100 w.e.f.

¶17

C.W.P.No .16277 of 2008 2

¶18

1.1.2002 in terms of above instructions dated 17.4.2000 (Annexure R-1) issued by the Punjab Government. The record of more than 50% of ACRs of the petitioner was not 'Good' and 2 ACRs out of last 3 ACRs were also not Good. In view of this, the petitioner was not found suitable for the grant of higher scale w.e.f. 1.1.2002.”

¶19

In para No.9 (ii) of the reply on merits, the respondents have

¶20

further averred as follows:-

¶21

“(ii) In reply to sub-para (ii) of para No.9 of the petition, it is submitted that placement in the higher scale of pay has not been declined on the basis of Adverse ACRs. As mentioned in the above said para 9 (i), the annual confidential reports of the petitioner for the year 1997-98, 1998-99 and 2001-2002 were NRC and for the year 1999-2000 was Average, there is no provision under Service Rules to communicate average ACRs. It is evident from the above that petitioner's overall record was not more than 50% Good and two out of the last three annual confidential reports of the petitioner were also not Good.....”

¶22

On the asking of the Court, Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has produced the original ACRs of the petitioner. It is revealed that no ACRs for the years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 2001-2002 was written and/or available on record. For the relevant period (before 1.1.2002), only two ACRs of the petitioner are available on record i.e., the years 1999-2000 (Average) and 2000-2001(Good). The report of 2001-2002 which is available on record is not for the relevant period. It is proved that out of two ACRs available on record, one is 'Good”, therefore

¶23

C.W.P.No .16277 of 2008 3

¶24

50% service record of the petitioner has to be treated as `Good' which makes him eligible for the grant of higher pay scale from the due date as per the criteria laid down and relied upon by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. Suffice it to observe that no prejudice can be caused to the petitioner for the inaction of the Reporting Officer(s) or for not updating his service record.

¶25

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.5.2008 (Annexure P-4) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to grant the pay scale of Rs.10025-15100 to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.2002 instead of 1.1.2005. The arrears shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶26

Dasti.

¶27

April 20, 2010 Mohinder

¶28

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagat Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Shri Saroop Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Jagdev Singh Garg Vs State of Punjab

Avtar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Harinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jasbir Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.