Disposed

Raghbir Singh and Anr. v. State of Pb. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Jul 2011CWP/20455/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Financial Commissioner to scrutinize DPC records and promotion orders to determine if certain officers were promoted against SC reserved roster points or as per seniority, clarifying facts before deciding the petitioners' claim for promotion.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Financial Commissioner, Govt. of Punjab, Excise and Taxation Department to scrutinize records, hear petitioner No.2 and affected persons, and determine the promotion date and seniority by

Raghbir Singh and Anr. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.20455 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.07.2011

Raghbir Singh & Anr.

VS.

State of Punjab & Ors.

¶8

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶10

¶11

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

Present: Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocate for

¶15

Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioners

¶16

Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG Punjab

¶17

¶18

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶19

(1). The question that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether or not the petitioners are entitled to be promoted as Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner against the roster points reserved for the Scheduled Castes?

¶20

(2). In this writ petition, filed by in the year 2006, the first petitioner has already unfortunately expired. Petitioner No.2 though has been meanwhile promoted as Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, however, the claim of both the petitioners for their promotion as Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioners from the due date

¶21

2 –

¶22

CWP No.20455 of 2006.doc

¶23

against the roster points, as alleged by them, is yet to be determined.

¶24

(3). The record would reveal that at one point of point, the official respondents came up with the plea that one Maninder Kaur Sidhu, belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, had been promoted against a reserve point and not as per her own seniority (Annexure R-XI) and as such the petitioners cannot claim out-of-turn promotion against the same roster point. In order to appreciate the said contention, the records of the proceedings of the DPC held on 20.05.1995 and 14.05.2006 were summoned and on perusal thereof, the following order was passed on 22.2.2010:-

¶25

“The proceedings of the DPC held on 20.05.2005 and 14.11.2006 have been perused. It is apparent from the proceedings dated 20.05.2005 that B.S. Bal has been promoted as per his seniority and not against the post reserved for the candidate of Scheduled Castes. Only S.C Dass and Maninder Kaur Sidhu have been promoted against the two posts reserved for the Scheduled Caste.

¶26

From the DPC proceedings dated 14.11.2006, it is apparent that there were 23 posts of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioners out of which 21 were of open category and two were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. It is not clear from the

¶27

3 –

¶28

CWP No.20455 of 2006.doc

¶29

proceedings, placed on record, as to how Pal Singh has been treated as a reserved category candidate?

¶30

On State counsel’s request, post again on 09.03.2010 to enable her to prepare a brief chart of the roster and also to find out the placement of Pal Singh in the seniority list of ETOs.”

¶31

(4).

¶32

Thereafter the respondents filed an additional affidavit which was self-contradictory as has been observed by a Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 09.05.2011 which reads as follows:-

¶33

“The petitioner is claiming promotion as an SC reserved category candidate against a reserved vacancy. One Neelam Chaudhary was earlier promoted. She is a reserved category candidate. In the additional affidavit of Ms. Ritu Aggarwal, Additional Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Excise & Taxation Department in para 2, it is stated that said Neelam Chaudhary was not promoted against the reserved vacancy. However, in the same affidavit, in para 7 she has been shown to be promoted against a reserved vacancy on 1.3.1999. This position needs to be clarified by the respondents.

¶34

Let the record of the DPC and the promotion order of said Neelam Chaudhary be produced on the next date of hearing.”

¶35

(5).

¶36

The official respondents, thus, themselves are not sure as to whether or not Maninder Kaur Sidhu or Neelam Chaudhary were promoted against the reserved

¶37

4 –

¶38

CWP No.20455 of 2006.doc

¶39

vacancies. Unless the authorities find out the correct facts, the claim of the petitioners for out-of-turn promotion against the roster points obviously cannot be determined.

¶40

(6). In the light of the factually-disputed pleas and counterpleas taken by the petitioners or the respondentAuthorities and taking into consideration the subsequent event namely, the promotion meanwhile granted to petitioner No.2, the real controversy, in my considered view stands confined to assignment of the due and correct date of promotion to the petitioners as Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner and thereafter determine the seniority of petitioner No.2 vis-à-vis the private respondents in the said cadre for the purpose of next promotion(s). As the matter requires scrutiny of original records to determine as to whether Ms. Maninder Kaur Sidhu and Neelam Chaudhary were promoted against the roster points or as per their seniority in the cadre, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Financial Commissioner, Government of Punjab, Excise and Taxation Department to hear petitioner No.2 and other affects person(s), scrutinize the records and thereafter determine the above-mentioned claim by passing a speaking order within a period of four

¶41

5 –

¶42

CWP No.20455 of 2006.doc

¶43

months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

¶44

order.

¶45

(7). The parties shall be given opportunity of personal hearing as well.

¶46

(8). Ordered accordingly. Dasti .

¶47

12.07.2011

¶48

vishal shonkar

¶49

(SURYA KANT) Judge

Raghbir Singh and Anr. v. State of Pb. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghbir Singh and Anr. v. State of Pb. 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

Jaswant Singh Kalsi Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

R.S.Virk Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Parveen Kumar Gandhi Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Sharda Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

S.K.Singla Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jaspinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.