Allowed

K C Goyal v. Haryana Urban Development Authority

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Jul 2013CWP/11425/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the HUDA to consider the petitioner, a Junior Engineer, for promotion using revised appraisal percentages (50% pre-1985, 70% post-1985). The court ordered a fresh assessment and to address uncommunicated adverse remarks if any exist.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st respondent to consider petitioner for promotion within 12 weeks using amended appraisal instructions and address uncommunicated adverse remarks if found.

K C Goyal Vs Haryana Urban Developme… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.11425 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision:15.07.2013

¶3

K.C. Goyal, Junior Engineer, Office of the Sub Divisional Engineer, Haryana, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Electrical Sub Division No.2, Sector 4, Gurgaon.

¶4

...Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

The Haryana Urban Development Authority, SCF No.841, Mani Majra, Chandigarh, through the Chief Administrator, and others. ....Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶8

Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Kiran Rathee, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶9

None for the respondents.

¶10

K.Kannan, J. (Oral)

¶11

The petitioner's grievance as a Junior Engineer working in HUDA was that he had not been considered for promotion to still higher post as Sub Divisional Engineer but his juniors had been promoted. All the juniors of the petitioner have been cited as respondents.

¶12

The learned senior counsel has two submissions to make: (i) none of the adverse remarks said to have been made against him was communicated to the petitioner and hence, they could not have been relied upon; (ii) the reports which were relevant

¶13

Civil Writ Petition No.11425 of 1990 (O&M) - 2 -

¶14

for consideration were that before 1985, the person must have at least 50% of assessment as 'good' and a notification had been made subsequently that altered the percentage of consideration as 70% for being assessed as 'good' for promotion. The interpretation has been rendered by this Court, on the basis of which, amended notification has been issued, is that the assessment shall be made for two specific periods, namely, for the period before 1985, it shall be to see whether the persons obtained due reckoning by having more than 50% 'good' appraisals and post 1985 whether he had obtained 70% 'good' appraisals.

¶15

The learned counsel would state that he would be satisfied if the petitioner's case is considered for promotion in the light of the amended instructions made after the judgment of this Court explaining the manner by which 50% and 70% appraisals have to be applied in given situations. The counsel would state that the petitioner has already been promoted on 23.12.1994 but this consideration will obtain to him the benefit of earlier date of deemed promotion and the corresponding monetary benefits thereon. The petitioner is entitled to such a consideration and I direct that the 1^st respondent shall undertake the exercise in the light of amended instructions by applying the percentage of 'good' appraisals that qualify him for consideration for promotion. If the appraisals of 'good' are not sufficient for consideration, the petitioner's grievance

¶16

Civil Writ Petition No.11425 of 1990 (O&M) - 3 -

¶17

that he has not been served with any adverse remarks during the relevant period may also be seen and if there are any adverse remarks which have not been communicated to him, the same shall be done and a decision taken after eliciting the response from the affected employee.

¶18

The consideration, as directed above, shall be undertaken by the respondent within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶19

The writ petition is ordered as above.

¶20

(K.KANNAN) JUDGE

¶21

15.07.2013 sanjeev

K C Goyal v. Haryana Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K C Goyal v. Haryana Urban Development Authority

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

Ajay Aggarwal and Ors. Vs Kumari Veena and Anr.

Balbir Singh and Anr. Vs Amolak Ram

Jamait Singh Vs State of Haryana etc.

Excise & Taxation Ministries Vs State of Haryana (Decided Case)

Maktul Singh Vs State of Haryana

(O&M)Hy.State Vs Pawan Kumar