Allowed

O.P.Ohri v. State of Pb.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Jan 2012CWP/4393/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge held that the rejection of the petitioner's claim for promotion to AFSO was erroneous due to the court's intervention in the interim. Despite the petitioner's superannuation, the promotion order was validated with backdated benefits including pension.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; petitioner deemed promoted to AFSO with all benefits including pension calculated retroactively within 12 weeks.

O.P.Ohri Vs State of Pb. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.4393 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.01.2012

¶3

O.P. Ohri, Senior Auditor, Office of the Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab, Chandigarh.

¶4

....Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Punjab, through the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Food and Supplies, Punjab, Chandigarh, and another.

¶7

....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶9

Present: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Trishanjali Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

¶11

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

¶12

To be referred to the reporters or not ? No.

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No.

¶14

----

¶15

K.Kannan, J. (Oral)

¶16

The petitioner seeks for quashing of the order under Annexure P-12 issued by the Director, Food and Supplies Office, rejecting his plea for a promotion to the post of Assistant Food and Supplies Officer (for short, 'AFSO'). The order came to be passed in terms of a direction given by this Court in CWP No.5882 of 1986 for undertaking a consideration on the petitioner's claim for promotion.

¶17

Civil Writ Petition No.4393 of 1988 (O&M) - 2 -

¶18

The basis of the petitioner's claim is that the persons in the rank of Assistant which was the feeder post for promotion to AFSO, he had been left out of consideration and his juniors had been promoted. The petitioner's grievance is that admittedly in the tentative seniority list issued under Annexure P-3, the petitioner had been shown at serial No.47, while the persons at serial Nos.48 to 51, 53, 56, 57, 59, 61 and 63, who were juniors to the petitioner, had been promoted to the higher post as AFSO, through orders passed under Annexures P-6, P-7 and P-8 respectively. It is not denied that from the post as Assistant, the next higher post was AFSO and another stream of promotion was to the post of Senior Auditor which carried lower scale than AFSO. To a claim by the petitioner for promotion to the post of AFSO, the rejection had been made on the basis that the petitioner had been promoted to the post as Senior Auditor and, therefore, he could not be further considered for promotion to the post of AFSO. It is also contended that yet another person R.P. Arora was senior to the petitioner and he had also objected to the promotion being granted to the persons stated to be juniors to the petitioner. It is contended that since his senior was also denied a similar consideration, the petitioner cannot be favourably considered.

¶19

To take up the last line of defence that a senior of the petitioner was not considered and, therefore, the petitioner also cannot be considered would be no argument, for, it would be open to

¶20

Civil Writ Petition No.4393 of 1988 (O&M) - 3 -

¶21

a person to either forsake his claim or assiduously pursue the same for one's benefit. The conduct of yet another person, who was senior to the petitioner could never be a determinant for the petitioner's own entitlement, for, that would be required to be considered in the light of the petitioner's own claim.

¶22

If the petitioner had opted to the promotion post as Senior Auditor and forsake his claim for consideration to post of AFSO, the respondent's denial could be justified. In this case, it is seen that an option calling for promotion to AFSO had been made on 19.04.1983 to all persons through the respective Section Heads and the petitioner had exercised his option for consideration for promotion to the AFSO post on 22.04.1983. The reason for nonconsideration appears to be ultimately only on account of the fact that the petitioner had been promoted to the post as Senior Auditor and, therefore, at the relevant time when orders of promotion were issued, the petitioner was officiating in the post as Senior Auditor and not in the post as Assistant. An explanation is brought forth by the petitioner by pointing out that the promotion to senior post was not on his option but an officiation due to the vacancy created by two officers, who were on leave, one Himat Singh Bedi, who was the Deputy Superintendent working in the Head Office and another, R.K. Kohli, who was a Senior Auditor, who had been on leave from 12.03.1984 to 30.04.1984. The order of promotion issued to the petitioner during the leave vacancy could not be said to operate as

¶23

Civil Writ Petition No.4393 of 1988 (O&M) - 4 -

¶24

withdrawal of an option exercised by the petitioner on 22.04.1983. The failure to consider the petitioner's claim for a promotion to be effective from the date when the petitioner's juniors were promoted was clearly wrong. The impugned order also states that the junior had been promoted from the post of Junior Auditors and it is shown to be factually incorrect and the respective orders of promotion granted through P-6 to P-8 refer to them as having been promoted from the post as Assistants.

¶25

It is informed that the petitioner has since been superannuated. The impugned order is quashed and the petitioner shall be taken as having been promoted to the post as AFSO and all the benefits accruing to the post including the terminal benefits and pension shall be calculated and released to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, after giving due credit to the salary and the other payments made subsequent to his superannuation.

¶26

The writ petition is allowed on the above terms.

¶27

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶28

10.01.2012 sanjeev

O.P.Ohri v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O.P.Ohri v. State of Pb.

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

Devinder Singh @ Bindu Vs State of Punjab

Mukhtiar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rakesh Bhardwaj & Anr. Vs Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh & Ors.

Mukhi Ram Vs Commissioner,Ambala Div.Etc.

Dalip Kaur Vs Punjab State through Financial Commissioner

Tek Ram etc. Vs Chief Canal Officer etc.