Dismissed

Smt. Dhanpati v. State of Haryana etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC30 Jan 2013RSA/527/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant's husband died before a promotion order. He had cleared efficiency bar but was deemed unfit for promotion. This court dismissed the suit, holding the deceased's right to promotion was personal and non-heritable, and rejection of his case was valid and final.

What did the court decide?

Suit dismissed. No arrears or enhanced pension granted as deceased's promotion right was personal and non-heritable, and reconsideration order did not mandate promotion.

Smt. Dhanpati Vs State of Haryana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

RSA No. 527 of 1993 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No. 527 of 1993 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.01.2013

Smt. Dhanpati

……Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana and another

¶9

…….Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL

¶11

Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Ajay Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for the respondents. *****

¶13

A.N. Jindal, J.

¶14

The plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred as 'the plaintiff') on the death of her husband Baldev Singh, an Ex-Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Haryana has sought declaration to the effect that Baldev Singh was entitled to seek his promotion on the basis of the judgment passed by this Court on 12.10.1976 in Civil Writ Petition No.1509 of 1971 and she being his wife was entitled to enhanced pension, gratuity and other arrears as admissible to him on the next grade promotion w.e.f. 01.09.1963 instead of 07.09.1971, when he was eventually promoted.

¶15

The point raised by the plaintiff for claiming promotion w.e.f. 01.09.1963 is that “since Baldev Singh was allowed to cross the efficiency bar, then why he could not be promoted?”

¶16

RSA No. 527 of 1993 (O&M)

¶17

¶18

The case of the defendants-respondents (hereinafter referred as 'the defendants') is that the case of Baldev Singh was considered, but he was not fit and suitable for promotion, therefore, he was not granted promotion from the said date. It was also submitted that even after the orders on the civil writ petition, his case regarding promotion was considered and vide detailed order, he was considered not fit for promotion from the back date. The criteria for allowing the efficiency bar and promotion are quite different. As at the time of considering the case of efficiency bar, his performance on the post is considered, but at the time of consideration regarding promotion, over all record of the employee, his ACRs, work and conduct, the enquiries and penalties are considered. Since Baldev Singh was not found fit for promotion from the date of crossing of the efficiency bar, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to the enhanced arrears of pay or pension. The plaintiff was informed about the fate of representations made by her husband vide letter dated 03.10.1989.

¶19

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:-

¶20

Whether the order with-holding the seniority and promotion of the plaintiff's husband, deceased Baldev Singh, passed by the defendants is illegal, null and void and is liable to be ignored as alleged in the plaint? OPP

¶21

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

¶22

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present for? OPD

¶23

Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPD

¶24

Relief.

¶25

RSA No. 527 of 1993 (O&M)

¶26

¶27

Both the parties led evidence. Ultimately, her suit was

¶28

dismissed, so as appeal.

¶29

Undisputedly, Baldev Singh was initially appointed as Sub Inspector in the Cooperative Societies on 24.08.1952 and his services were terminated w.e.f. 28.02.1958. Vide orders dated 18.08.1964, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, reinstated him as Sub Inspector. Further vide order dated 16.06.1965, his absence period was treated as on duty for all intents and purposes. Since Baldev Singh was not promoted from the date, his juniors were promoted, he filed a Civil Writ Petition No.1509 of 1971 titled as Baldev Singh Vs. The State of Haryana etc., wherein this Court, after discussing all the facts and circumstances of the case, observed on 12.10.1976, as under:-

¶30

“In view of what has been said and discussed above the writ petition succeeds and a direction requires to be issued to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner for promotion from the due date from which he was allowed to cross the efficiency bar as in his absence respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were promoted. Let such a direction be issued. The costs of the petition shall be Rs.100/-.”

¶31

In the meantime, Baldev Singh died on 29.10.1988 after

¶32

completing his 18 years of service. However, on the death of Baldev Singh, without waiting the orders passed by the competent authority with regard to consideration of promotion, plaintiff again filed a suit for the following declaration:-

¶33

“Suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to get the case of her deceased husband Baldev Singh, Inspector of Cooperative Societies, reconsidered for fixation of seniority and promotion due to him, which were withheld wrongly and illegally by the defendants despite judgment dated 12.10.1976 of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, in Civil Writ No.1509 of 1971, and that the plaintiff is entitled to get the family pension re-fixed as per promoted rank's pay and allowances besides all the arrears of the difference in the pay of Inspector and the next

¶34

RSA No. 527 of 1993 (O&M)

¶35

¶36

promoted rank, and that she is also entitled to arrears arising out of the increments from 15.09.1975 to 30.06.1978 and travelling allowances for the month of October and November, 1977, which payments have been illegally with-held by the defendants, with a consequential relief of mandatory injunction to pay all the above said arrears/amounts to plaintiff along with interest @ Rs.18% p.a. from due date till payment.”

¶37

The first Appellate Court had examined the case in detail and

¶38

observed as under:-

¶39

“8. It is urged by learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant that plaintiff Sh. Baldev Singh was allowed to cross efficiency bar w.e.f. 28.08.1962, the earlier record of Sh. Baldev Singh cannot be used against him. On this point, judgment delivered in case State of Punjab Versus Dewan Chuni Lal, 1970 Service Law Reporter, S.C. 375, has been cited. As far as legal proposition is concerned, there is no dispute. From the very evidence adduced by the respondents, it has transpired that in view of the direction of Hon'ble High Court, the case of Sh. Baldev Singh for promotion was considered, but he was not found fit for promotion. Sh. Arjun Singh Gulati, DW-1, has categorically stated about this fact. Sh. Balwan Singh, Special Attorney, has not denied this fact specifically. He rather expressed his ignorance about this fact whether the case of his father was considered for promotion or not. Hon'ble High Court has not ordered promotion and only a direction was given to the effect that the case of the plaintiff for promotion be considered. This the respondents have done. It was the subjective satisfaction of the employer while giving promotion from looking into the service record of a particular official. According to the policy of Government, 70% good reports are required when case of a particular official is to be considered for promotion. From the evidence adduced on the file, it has transpired that Sh. Baldev Singh was not fulfilling this requirement.”

¶40

In any case, this Court vide judgment dated 12.10.1976 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.1509 of 1971, had directed the defendants to consider the case of Baldev Singh for promotion. Without waiting for the orders passed in compliance with the aforesaid orders passed by this Court, the plaintiff filed the present suit, which was quite premature. However, it has come to light that the case of Baldev Singh for promotion was considered, but

¶41

RSA No. 527 of 1993 (O&M)

¶42

¶43

he having failed to conform to the criteria laid down for promotion, was not promoted and necessary order in that regard was passed.

¶44

Another argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that when employee is allowed to cross the efficiency bar, then it would be deemed that all adverse entries in his record would be wiped out and nothing bad remains to be considered, which may stand in his way for promoting him to the higher post.

¶45

I do not agree to the contention. Even, if an employee is allowed to cross the efficiency bar, then still his entire record would be seen while judging his suitability for promotion. Similar observations were made by a Division Bench of this Court in case Ran Singh Kalson Vs. State of Haryana, 1978 (1) SLR 450, wherein it was observed as under:-

¶46

“On a proper analysis of Dewan Chuni Lal's case, we are unable to hold that the adverse entries prior to the date when a public servant is allowed to cross the efficiency bar are completely wiped out or cannot be taken into consideration while judging his suitability for promotion to a higher rank. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the case of Shri Shadi Lal (supra) was not correctly decided and that while considering the case of a public servant for future promotion, it is open to the competent authority to take the entire record of service into consideration for judging his suitability.”

¶47

The defendants, in their written statement, have disclosed that the case of Baldev Singh was reconsidered and he was not found suitable and his representation for promotion was declined vide order dated 03.10.1989. This order was never challenged by the plaintiff by way of present suit. Secondly, the right of promotion of Baldev Singh was his personal right and was not heritable, therefore, only he could challenge the same. As such, the wife of the deceased Baldev Singh i.e. plaintiff, has no locus standi to claim his promotion after his death. Thirdly, the Civil Court could not sit over to

¶48

RSA No. 527 of 1993 (O&M)

¶49

¶50

supervise the administrative action in connection with promotion or demotion of an employee and it is for the competent authority to decide about the same. The Court could only issue a direction for considering the case of the plaintiff for such purpose. As such, the question that Baldev Singh deserved promotion and he must be promoted from the particular date, is beyond the purview of the Civil Court.

¶51

As regards the other relief with regard to T.A. bills, those are already time barred and no relief qua the same could be granted. No other claim has been pressed.

¶52

Consequently, this Court is of the view that both the Courts below have taken right view of the matter while declining to grant relief to the plaintiff.

¶53

Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 30.01.2013 Judge ajp

Smt. Dhanpati v. State of Haryana etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Dhanpati v. State of Haryana etc.

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

Pohap Singh and Another Vs M.C.Faridabad

(O&M) State of Punjab Vs Mohinder Pal

(O&M) Punjabi University, Patiala Vs Jaspal Singh

K.L.Kohli Vs State of Punjab

State Ofpunjab etc. Vs Kl Kohli

Ramesh Chand Vs General Public and Anr.