Allowed

Sukhdev Singh v. the Union of India

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Apr 2012CWP/6981/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of orders reverting a petitioner from clerk to subordinate cadre. Relying on res judicata and the finality of a civil court decree, the Court held the petitioner is entitled to be treated as promoted and granted consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed. Petitioner treated as promoted with service continuity and entitled to consequential benefits including arrears with interest.

Sukhdev Singh Vs the Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1-

¶2

C.W.P. No.6981 of 2003

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P. No.6981 of 2003 Date of Decision.16.04.2012

¶5

Sukhdev Singh s/o Sadhu Singh (PFM No.36740) Clerk Branch Office UCO Bank, Shahkot Distt. Jalandhar

¶6

.....Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and others .....Respondents

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Present: Mr. Gurbachan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶12

None for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶13

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶14

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes/No

¶15

To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes/No

¶16

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No

¶17

-.-

¶18

K. KANNAN J.

¶19

The petitioner, who was a Clerk in the Branch Office of the UCO Bank in District Jalandhar seeks for quashing of the order reverting him from the clerical cadre to the subordinate cadre. The reversion order was purported to be necessary in view of the fact that promotion had been given to him in violation of Clause 4.10(a) of PPS 1988. It cited, inter alia, that for filling up of vacancies, where there were candidates with the same qualification, the employees who acquired qualification earlier would be preferred against those who had acquired qualification later.

¶20

The petitioner would contend that he had been appointed as Peon on 05.04.1984 and he had passed matriculation. Later he had

¶21

-2-

¶22

C.W.P. No.6981 of 2003

¶23

resorted to a civil suit against the Bank and one Suraj Parkash, who, according to the petitioner, had been appointed subsequently on 27.07.1984 as a Peon but was selected and posted as Clerk at Ferozepur earlier on obtaining a matriculation qualification. The Civil Court had approved of the petitioner's contention and granted a decree entitling the petitioner to be considered for promotion on the day when his junior Suraj Parkash was promoted. The Bank had preferred an appeal against the decision before the District Judge at Forezepur but by a decision dated 21.01.2000, the Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the trial Court made on 12.03.1998 and dismissed the appeal filed by the Bank. The promotion order that had been issued on 02.05.2000 was pursuant to the Civil Court decree.

¶24

When the petitioner had been served with a notice to show cause against withdrawal of the promotion by citing that he had been wrongly promoted without reference to the relevant Rule, the petitioner had earlier challenged the proposed action of the respondents in C.W.P. No.4580 of 2003 but later had it dismissed as withdrawn when the Court allowed the petitioner to state his objection and directing the respondents to take a decision on the basis of his objection. This decision was taken by the Bank and the decision by the 1^st authority, which was later affirmed by the higher authorities are the subject of challenge before this Court.

¶25

I cannot allow for a reconsideration of the issue of entitlement to promotion after the Civil Court had pronounced on his entitlement and after the decree had become final. The decision, which has been rendered between the same parties by a competent Civil Court will operate as res judicata and will offer no scope to the respondents to

¶26

-3-

¶27

C.W.P. No.6981 of 2003

¶28

withdraw by reference to any Regulations. If the Regulations provided for certain conditions for promotion, they ought to have been taken as grounds of defence in the civil suit filed by the petitioner. If the respondents have failed to take up the defence by reference to Regulation 4.10 (a) of PPS 1988, they shall be deemed to have waived their right and by the principle of res judicata, the respondents shall be barred from contending that the promotion order already issued to him was wrong. It must be remembered that the erlier order promoting the petitioner itself was issued not by any wrong application of Rules but on the other hand, on the direction of the Civil Court decree. There was no scope for withdrawal of the same by finding that certain Regulations were not duly noticed at the time of granting promotion.

¶29

The impugned orders are quashed and the petitioner is entitled to be treated as having been promoted and shall be treated as having continued in the promotion post without reference to the impugned orders. The petitioner till also draw all consequential benefits to the extent to which they are relevant for computation of any arrears. The same shall be calculated and released to the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order within interest @6% from the date when the reservation order was made.

¶30

The writ petition is allowed with costs assessed at Rs10,000 against the respondents.

¶31

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶32

April 16, 2012 Pankaj*

Sukhdev Singh v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhdev Singh v. the Union of India

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

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.

Hardev Sharma Vs State of Punjab

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

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