Dismissed

Gian Chand v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Jul 2012CWP/12989/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought promotion to Junior Engineer, arguing his junior's promotion entitled him to the post. The bench held the petition was hit by constructive res judicata as he earlier failed to challenge the junior's promotion and the claim was time-barred due to over 23 years delay. Additionally, the petitioner lacked sufficient regular service as per statutory rules at the time of the junior's p

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition was dismissed in its entirety. No consequential benefits were granted.

Gian Chand Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

CWP No. 12989 of 2007

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

CWP No. 12989 of 2007

¶5

Date of Decision : July 06, 2012

Gian Chand

.... PETITIONER

Vs.

State of Haryana and others

¶10

..... RESPONDENTS

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶12

Present : Mr. P.L.Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

¶14

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

¶15

Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 16.03.2006 (Annexure P-1) vide which the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer stands rejected on the ground that there was no vacant post of Junior Engineer available as per the directions issued by this Court for consideration of the claim of the petitioner in CWP No. 6799 of 1994 titled as Gian Chand vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 09.12.2005.

¶16

CWP No. 12989 of 2007

¶17

¶18

It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to promotion to the post of Junior Engineer w.e.f. 19.02.1984 i.e. the date when his junior Zile Singh was promoted. Prayer has also been made for grant of all consequential benefits arising therefrom.

¶19

On a question put by this Court as to whether the promotion of Zile Singh-respondent No. 5 was challenged by the petitioner through his writ petition, which he had preferred earlier i.e. CWP No. 6799 of 1994, counsel for the petitioner has very fairly conceded that it was not done. In the light of the fact that the petitioner failed to challenge the promotion of Zile Singh in earlier writ petition and has only based his claim for promotion on the question of availability of the post, the present writ petition is hit by the principle of constructive res-judicata and would, therefore, not be maintainable as regards the claim of the petitioner viz-a-viz Zile Singh by challenging his promotion.

¶20

Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition basing his claim on the date of promotion of his junior after a period of more than 23 years which is hopelessly time barred and, therefore, on this ground also, the writ petition cannot be entertained.

¶21

That apart, it has been pleaded by the respondents that Zile Singh is not junior to the petitioner as the petitioner was appointed as Work Munshi on 14.01.1971 as work charge employee

¶22

CWP No. 12989 of 2007

¶23

¶24

and was regularized w.e.f. 24.07.1980 whereas Zile Singh was appointed as Work Munshi as regular on work charge basis on 16.07.1971. As per the statutory Rules, the minimum requirement for consideration for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer as far as the experience is concerned, is 10 years of regular service as Work Charge Munshi which the petitioner did not have on the day when Zile Singh was promoted as Junior Engineer i.e. 19.02.1984, therefore, the petitioner cannot be promoted as Zile Singh from the said date. As a matter of fact, petitioner became eligible for consideration for promotion only on 24.07.1990 when he completed 10 years of regular service.

¶25

As regards his claim for promotion as a Junior Engineer as per the directions issued by this Court that CWP No. 6799 of 1994 preferred by the petitioner is concerned, the same was duly considered by the respondents and there being no vacant post available of Junior Engineer against which the petitioner could be promoted, the claim has rightly been rejected vide impugned order dated 16.03.2006.

¶26

In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.

¶27

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE

¶28

July 06, 2012 pj

¶29

CWP No. 12989 of 2007 4

Gian Chand v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gian Chand v. State of Haryana and 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

Surender Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ishwar Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Kewal Krishan Vs Union of India and Ors.

Saroop Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mamta Rani & Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.