Disposed

Vipan Kumar Puri v. S.K. Goyal

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Nov 2013COCP/51/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition, the High Court held that while entitlement to arrears varies based on the reason for delayed promotion, the specific direction in the underlying writ order mandating 'all consequential benefits' must be implemented. The respondent bank was directed to release financial benefits from the retrospective promotion date.

What did the court decide?

The respondent bank directed to release financial benefits to the petitioner from the retrospective date within three months.

Vipan Kumar Puri Vs S.K. Goyal — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

COCP No. 51 of 2013 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶3

CHANDIGARH.

¶4

COCP No. 51 of 2013

¶5

Date of Decision: November 14, 2013

Vipan Kumar Puri

…..Petitioner

Vs.

S.K. Goyal

…..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

¶12

-.-

¶13

Present:Mr.K.L. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr.N.C. Sahni, Advocate

¶15

-.-

¶16

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶17

The petitioner had filed a writ petition No. 44 of 2008 seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and promote him from Clerical cadre to Officers Scale I cadre w.e.f. the date his juniors have been promoted. The said writ petition was decided on March 23, 2011. The operative part of the judgment reads as follows:-

¶18

Gupta Sanjay 2013.11.18 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶19

COCP No. 51 of 2013

¶20

[2]

¶21

“8. The facts of the case in hand as noticed in the order dated 28.01.2011, are altogether different. The petitioner's claim for promotion was considered on 02.11.2000 and recommendations made by the DPC were approved by the Board of Directors on 30.04.2001. The petitioner's juniors were later on promoted w.e.f. 31.12.2000. The relevant period in the case of the petitioner was from November, 2000 to April, 2001 when the Board of Directors approved the proceedings of the DPC. No charge sheet was contemplated or issued to the petitioner at that time. It was after a long period of three years that a charge-sheet dated 19.04.2003 was issued in which the petitioner was held guilty and punished. The Central Vigilance Commission circular dated 21.07.2006 cannot be stretched to empower firstly to with-hold the promotion and meanwhile dig out a charge-sheet and deny the promotion. The interregnum period referred to in para 4 of the circular dated 21.07.2006 has to be a reasonable period commencing from the date of receipt of the recommendation for promotion upto the

¶22

Gupta Sanjay 2013.11.18 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶23

COCP No. 51 of 2013

¶24

[3]

¶25

consequential actual promotion of the employee. It is meant to deal with a situation where an employee's promotion case is in the pipeline and meanwhile some serious misconduct on his part is detected.

¶26

That being so, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 28.01.2011 is made absolute with a direction to the respondent-Bank to consider the petitioner's case for promotion w.e.f. the date his juniors were promoted. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits also. The needful be done within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶27

Dasti.”

¶28

The said order was upheld by LPA Bench vide order annexure P-2 dated May 8, 2012. Petitioner claims that he has been considered for promotion from the date his juniors have been promoted but financial benefits have not been granted to him.

¶29

Grievance of the petitioner in the present Contempt Petition is that while allowing his writ petition, a special direction was given that the petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits also.

¶30

Gupta Sanjay 2013.11.18 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶31

COCP No. 51 of 2013

¶32

[4]

¶33

Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to the financial benefits as he had not actually worked on the higher post. Placing reliance on the judgment of State of Haryana and others Vs. O.P. Gupta and others , (1996) 7 SCC 533 and Union of India Vs. B.M. Jha , (2007) 11 SCC 632, counsel for the respondent has submitted that when notional promotion is granted to an employee from previous date, he will not be entitled to arrears of salary during the period he did not work.

¶34

I have heard counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondent. Whether an employee is entitled to arrears of salary in case of grant of notional promotion has been answered in positive in following six cases:-

¶35

Union of India Vs. G.D. Goel, (ILR (2008) Suppl. (1) Delhi 44).

¶36

State of Kerala Vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai , AIR 2007 SC 2645 (DB).

¶37

Ram Dass Vs. State of Punjab , 2009 (5) SLR 359 (P&H).

¶38

G. Muthuraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another , 2013 (2) SCALE 553 (DB).

¶39

State of Punjab through Collector Vs. Raj Singh , (2011) 163 PLR 156.

¶40

Sh.N.K. Sood Vs. Food Corporation of India , CWP

¶41

No. 6543 of 1992, decided on 3.4.2012. (P&H)

¶42

Gupta Sanjay 2013.11.18 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶43

COCP No. 51 of 2013

¶44

[5]

¶45

However, as per the following judgments, the arrears of salary have been held to be not permissible in case of grant of notional promotion:-

¶46

Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India , (2009) 16 SC 146;

¶47

A.K. Soumini Vs. State Bank of Travancore , JT 2003 (8) SC 35;

¶48

Prem Kumar Chauhan Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board , 2008 (4) SLR 635;

¶49

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao , JT 1999 (3) SC 205;

¶50

State of Haryana Vs. O.P. Gupta , (1996) 7 SCC 533;

¶51

Union of India Vs. B.M. Jha , (2007) 11 SCC 632; and

¶52

Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan , AIR 2011 SC 189 (DB).

¶53

After going through the above said judgments, I am of the considered opinion that as per the judgment in G.D. Goyal’s case (supra), arrears of salary should be paid when promotion was denied due to sheer negligence, carelessness and malafide of the employer but where there is genuine dispute and on account of the same, promotion had been denied but subsequently allowed, in such cases, retrospective promotion shall not always guarantee payment of arrears of salary. The benefit of arrears of salary for past period can also be denied if it is found that it was not the

¶54

Gupta Sanjay 2013.11.18 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶55

COCP No. 51 of 2013

¶56

[6]

¶57

fault or the mistake of the administration because of which the promotion was delayed.

¶58

In contempt jurisdiction, it will not be appropriate for this Court to enter into the controversy regarding the entitlement of the petitioner for the back wages. Since the objective of civil contempt proceedings is to implement an order passed by the Court, without entering into the controversy, it will be appropriate in the present circumstances to take into consideration the specific directions of the Court dated March 23, 2011 that petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits also. It can be interpreted only to mean that the petitioner will be entitled to the financial benefits. The respondent is directed to release the financial benefits pursuant to the promotion of the petitioner from the retrospective date and release the same in accordance with the directions within a period of three months after the receipt of a certified copy of the order.

¶59

Disposed of.

¶60

November 14, 2013 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE

¶61

Gupta Sanjay 2013.11.18 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Vipan Kumar Puri v. S.K. Goyal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipan Kumar Puri v. S.K. Goyal

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

Kuldeep Singh Vs K.B.S. Sidhu IAS and Ors.

Mulkh Raj Vs K.B.S. Sidhu & Ors.

Anchal Singh Vs K.B.S. Sidhu and Anr.

Jarnail Singh Vs Amarjit Singh Dullet

Malkiat Singh Josan Vs State of Punjab

Mahabir Singh Goyat Vs Dakshin Hry Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.