Allowed

Hardev Sharma v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Apr 2012CWP/10139/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner is entitled to be treated as promoted on the same date as his juniors, thereby securing seniority and consequential benefits as per established judicial precedent regarding examination attempts.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner shall be treated as promoted on the date respondents No.3 to 5 were promoted and entitled to consequential benefits including arrears of pay within 8 weeks.

Hardev Sharma Vs State of Punjab — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No.10139 of 1991(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.10139 of 1991(O&M) Date of Decision: 16.04.2012

¶5

Hardev Sharma, Accountant, Office of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Ludhiana-I.

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab through the Secretary to Govt. Punjab Excise and Taxation Department, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others.

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶11

Present: Mr. Jaivir Chandail, Advocate for Mr. Arun Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. S.S. Sahu, AAG, Punjab, for the respondents No.1 and 2.

¶13

None for respondents No.3 to 5.

¶14

¶15

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

¶16

To be referred to the reporters or not? NO

¶17

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO

¶18

K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)

¶19

The petitioner's contention is that he had passed the Assistant Grade Examination in June, 1987 but he had not been promoted at the time when his juniors respondents No.3 to 5 had been promoted. The reason for promoting his juniors as contended by the official respondents was that his juniors had passed the examination in less than 5 attempts while the petitioner had passed the qualifying examination only in the 6^th attempt. The issue of whether the number of times that the person had appeared for clearing the examination could make a difference was considered by this Court in Ashok Kumar v.

¶20

-2-

¶21

CWP No.10139 of 1991(O&M)

¶22

The State of Punjab and others in CWP No.5203 of 1988 and this Court by its order dated 03.04.1990 has held that it could make no difference. The same position has also been considered by the Supreme Court while confirming a decision of this Court in Saroj Rani v. State of Punjab in Civil Appeal Nos.11660-11661 of 1995.

¶23

The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 states that the seniority has been re-fixed in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Saroj Rani's case. A fortiori the petitioner shall be entitled to similar consideration and he shall be treated as having been promoted on the day when his juniors, namely, respondents No.3 to 5 were promoted. The consequential benefits attendant on the consideration for promotion from an earlier date, that is, from the date when respondents No.3 to 5 had been promoted shall be worked out and if there are any arrears, the same shall be released to the petitioner within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits in the service by applying the rule of seniority treating him as senior to the respondents No.3 to 5 in the promoted post as well.

¶24

The writ petition is allowed on the above terms.

¶25

16^th April, 2012 rajan

¶26

( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE

Hardev Sharma v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardev Sharma v. State of Punjab

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

The Bhiwani Central Coope. Bank Emp Union (Regd) Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rita K. Singh Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Krishan Gopal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Parmod Singh Patyal & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sukhdev Singh Vs the Union of India

Sudershan Kumar Gupta Vs F.C.I.& Ors.