Dismissed

Union Territory Chandigarh and Ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 May 2013CWP/11971/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking interference with CAT allowing promotion and salary payment to a government officer was dismissed. The Court directed the Union Territory to convene a DPC for promotion consideration before July 31, 2013, making the salary order redundant if promoted.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to convene DPC for promotion before 31.7.2013; salary payment direction stood submerged as redundant if applicant promoted.

Union Territory Chandigarh and Ors… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.11971 of 2013 Date of Decision : May 29, 2013

¶3

Union Territory, Chandigarh and another versus

¶4

.....Petitioners

¶5

Central Administrative Tribunal and another .....Respondents

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH.

¶7

Present : Ms.Jaishree Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶8

-.-

¶9

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

¶13

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶14

The Chandigarh Administration impugns the order dated 8.2.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, whereby Original Application preferred by the second respondent has been allowed and two directions (i) to convene the DPC to consider respondent No.2 for promotion to the post of District Food and Supply Officer and (ii) to pay him salary for the period he worked on the afore-stated post, have been issued.

¶15

The facts are not in dispute. The second respondent was promoted as Assistant Food and Supply Officer w.e.f. 16.12.2008. The then incumbent on the post of Food and Supply Officer (for short, 'DFSCAO') retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2011. The regular post, therefore, fell vacant w.e.f. 1.8.2011. Respondent No.2 being senior most AFSO was given the charge of the said post

¶16

CWP No.11971 of 2013 [2]

¶17

and he continued to perform the duties as DFSCAO till he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.4.2012. The grievance of respondent No.2 before the Tribunal was that since regular post had fallen vacant and he was fully eligible for promotion, he ought to have been promoted on regular basis as DFSCAO but no DPC was convened. Alternatively, respondent No.2 sought a direction for payment of salary as DFSCAO as he had worked on such post till his retirement.

¶18

It is indeed not in dispute that service conditions of the officers of the department are governed by the Rules, known as “the Punjab Food and Supplies Department (States Service Class-II) Rules, 1966. Rule-6 of these Rules pertains to method of appointment and its clause (h) read with sub-rule (3) being relevant, are reproduced as follows:-

¶19

“(h) In the case of District Food and Supplies Officer :-

¶20

(i) by promotion of an Assistant Food and Supplies Officer having an experience of working on that post for a minimum period of two years;

¶21

(3) All appointments by promotion shall be made by selection on the basis of senioritycum-merit and no person shall have any claim to any post in the service merely on the ground of seniority.......”

¶22

The Tribunal has upheld the claim of respondent No.2 observing that he had a right to be considered for promotion as regular post had fallen vacant and he was senior

¶23

CWP No.11971 of 2013

¶24

[3]

¶25

most AFSO eligible for such promotion under the rules. A direction to pay him salary as admissible on the post of DFSCAO has also been issued on the premise that respondent No.2 worked on such post w.e.f. 1.8.2011 till he retired on superannuation on 30.4.2012.

¶26

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and gone through the record.

¶27

In our considered view, no interference with the order passed by the Tribunal is called for for the following reasons:-

¶28

i) under the statutory service rules, 'promotion' has been prescribed as one of the source of recruitment to the post of DFSCAO. It was not the case of the petitioners before the Tribunal that no post within promotion quota was available;

¶29

ii) Second respondent was senior most AFSO and fully eligible for being considered for promotion on completion of two years as AFSO which he completed in December, 2010;

¶30

iii) The petitioners themselves asked respondent No.2 to perform the duty as DFSCAO w.e.f. 1.8.2011 and he continued to serve as such till his retirement on superannuation on 30.4.2012;

¶31

iv) There is not even a whisper before the Tribunal or before this Court that there was any adverse material against respondent No.2 to deprive him from consideration of

¶32

CWP No.11971 of 2013

¶33

[4]

¶34

consequential promotion as DFSCAO.

¶35

Be that as it may, the only direction which can be issued to the petitioners is to convene a DPC and consider respondent No.2 for promotion to the post of DFSCAO by following the criteria under the rules. Suffice it to observe that if the DPC is convened and respondent No.2 is found suitable, he would be entitled to the consequential benefits including the pay scales of DFSCAO w.e.f. 1.8.2011. In that event the second direction regarding payment of salary would obviously become redundant. However, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we permit the petitioners to convene the DPC before 31.7.2013.

¶36

With these observations, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶37

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶38

$ May 29, 2013 (R.P.NAGRATH) Mohinder JUDGE

Union Territory Chandigarh and Ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Territory Chandigarh and Ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors.

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

Devender and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Kewaljit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Jaspal Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

M/S Simran Bright Bar Industries Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rajnish Kumar Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Ors.

Dharamjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.