Allowed

Daman Kumar v. Pu and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Aug 2012CWP/13454/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the university's refusal to promote a senior-most Mate to Work Inspector. The court held that the petitioner was eligible for a Mate quota vacancy created by retirement and was directed to be considered for promotion with retrospective seniority.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner declared eligible for promotion and seniority granted from the date of earlier promotions, with directions to consider him against available vacancies.

Daman Kumar Vs Pu and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C.W.P. No. 13454 of 2010 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.W.P. No. 13454 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: August 17, 2012

Daman Kumar

.. Petitioner

Punjab University and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Karan Singh Sandhu, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3.

¶12

None for respondent No. 4 despite service.

¶13

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶14

The petitioner, who is working as Mortar Mate with Panjab University, has approached this court challenging the promotion of respondent No. 4 as Work Inspector.

¶15

Briefly, the pleaded facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Mortar Mate on work-charged basis on 12.6.1985. His services were regularised w.e.f. 2.4.1993. He is claiming himself to be a Post Graduate. The University framed policy on 19.9.1998 for promotion to the post of Work Inspector from amongst Mates/ Mortar Mates, Electricians Glaziercum-Polishers, Painters, Masons, White-Washers, Carpenters, MeterReader, Pump-Driver and Plumbers on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. In terms thereof, in Civil Units, seven posts were to be filled up from other Class 'B' employees, such as Carpenters, Masons, Painters and WhiteWashers, whereas two posts were meant for Mates. After retirement of Gopal Singh on 30.4.2010, who was promoted as Work Inspector from the

¶16

C.W.P. No. 13454 of 2010 [2]

¶17

cadre of Mates, the claim of the petitioner was not considered, whereas respondent No. 4, who was working as Mason, was promoted. It is at this stage that the petitioner filed the present petition raising the grievance that he has been denied due promotion.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the policy for promotion to the post of Work Inspector, approved in the meeting of the Syndicate held on 19.9.1998, two posts were reserved to be filled up from amongst the Mates. Earlier Chedi Lal and Gopal Singh, who had been promoted as Work Inspectors from Mates, were working. After the retirement of Gopal Singh on 30.4.2010, the post in the quota of Mates became available. The name of the petitioner was even recommended, however, he was not promoted. In the meantime, new policy was framed which was approved by the Syndicate on 4.12.2009. Even that does not affect the case of the petitioner. Two posts of Work Inspector had fallen vacant, whereas three more posts were created and in total five posts were to be filled up. The petitioner being the senior most Mate deserved to be promoted as at present, only one Work Inspector, promoted out of the cadre of Mates, was working.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for the official respondents submitted that no doubt, as per the promotion policy approved in the year 1998, in Civil Units, two posts of Work Inspector were to be filled up from Mates, however, it was specifically mentioned in the policy itself that while making promotions to the post of Work Inspector in Civil Units, first four posts will be offered to Class 'B' employees in the cadre, then one Mate shall be promoted and thereafter three Class 'B' employees, then one Mate and so on. He further submitted that the petitioner being Mate belongs to Class-III employees. Two posts of Work Inspector had fallen vacant. Three more posts were created. Out of three newly sanctioned posts, one post was ear-marked for Electrical Unit, hence, only four posts of Work Inspector in Civil Units were required to be filled in. As per the policy, first four posts were to be filled up from Class 'B' employees, such as Carpenters, Masons, Painters and White Washers. There is no illegality in the action of the official respondents in promoting respondent No. 4, as he being Mason was

¶20

C.W.P. No. 13454 of 2010 [3]

¶21

Class 'B' employee.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

¶23

The promotion policy provides that in Civil Units, seven posts of Work Inspector are to be filled up from Class 'B' employees, such as Carpenters, Masons, Painters and White-Washers, whereas two posts of Work Inspector were to be filled up from Mates. It is further provided that at the time of promotion to the post of Work Inspector in Civil Units, first four posts will be offered to Class 'B' employees and the fifth one will go to Mate. Then next three vacancies will be filled up from Class 'B' employees and next one will go to the Mate and so on. It is not in dispute that Chedi Lal and Gopal Singh had been promoted as Work Inspector from Mates. Gopal Singh retired on 30.4.2010. After his retirement, the petitioner requested for his promotion as Work Inspector being senior most Mate, however, he was not promoted. Reliance is sought to be placed by the official respondents on the note in the policy that first four posts are to be filled up from Class 'B' employees. As there were only four posts to be filled up at that moment, the petitioner was not promoted. However, the plea sought to be raised by the official respondents to justify denial of promotion to the petitioner is totally misconceived. The promotion policy clearly provided that seven posts of Work Inspector in Civil Units were to be filled up from other Class 'B' employees, such as Carpenters, Masons, Painters and White-Washers and two posts were to be filled up from Mates. It is not in dispute that earlier Chedi Lal and Gopal Singh, who were promoted from Mates as Work Inspectors, had been working. Gopal Singh retired on 30.4.2010. Meaning thereby thereafter there was only one Mate, who on promotion was working as Work Inspector. To justify denial of promotion to the petitioner on the ground that four posts, which were available to be filled up as Work Inspector will go to other Class 'B' employees at first place is totally unreasonable as promotion to the post of Work Inspector was not being made for the first time. It was a process, which was continuing. If the plea, which is sought to be raised by the official respondents is accepted, no one may ever be promoted as Work Inspector

¶24

C.W.P. No. 13454 of 2010 [4]

¶25

from Mates as each time, there may not be more than four posts to be filled up. The position in the cadre is to be seen in totality. Once it has specifically been provided that two posts of Work Inspector in Civil Units are to be filled up from Mates and one post in that quota had become available on the retirement of Gopal Singh on 30.4.2010, the petitioner was eligible to be considered for promotion.

¶26

For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned action of the official respondents in denying promotion to the petitioner is set aside. The petitioner be considered for promotion against the vacancies available when by passing the impugned order (Annexure P-9), five persons were promoted as Work Inspector. In case found eligible, he be granted promotion, may be by reverting the person who was not eligible at that time. The petitioner shall also be entitled to seniority from the date when promotions to the post of Work Inspector were made vide Annexure P-9.

¶27

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶28

( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge

¶29

August 17, 2012 mk

Daman Kumar v. Pu and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daman Kumar v. Pu 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

Punjab Agr.University Ludhiana & Anr. Vs Polc Bhatinda & Ar

Deepak Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Subhash Arora and Anr. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Amandeep Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Anil Pannikker Vs State Information Commission & Ors.

Mahindra & Mahindra Vs P.O., Industrial Tribunal-Labour Court, Panipat % Anr.