Shabdesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Prayer made in the present pe t ition is for quashing the orders dated 16. 0 9.2009 (Annexure P-5) and 24.08.2021 (Annexure P-8) rejecting c l aim of the petitioner for gran t of proficiency step up w.e.f. 08.11.2001 on completion of 8 years service in the cadre of Naib Tehsildar.

¶15

The petitioner, initially app o inted as a District Revenue Accountan t , was promoted to the position of Naib Tehsildar on 08.11.1993 , following the completion of 8 years of service, he sought a proficiency step up, in accordance with th e instructions dated 10.01.2000 and 16.01. 2 001 (Annexures P-2 and P-3) s t ipulating that 50% of ACRs of

¶16

PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.14 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶17

��

¶18

��

¶19

8 years ha v e to be “good” and the ACRs o f preceding two years, out of the aforesa i d consideration period of 8 year s , have to be “good”. 3. Learned counsel refers to par a 3 of the reply filed by way of affidavit o f the Under Secretary, Department of Revenue Rehabilitation and Disast e r Management, relevant portion whereof reads thus:

¶20

“In pursuance to the relevant rules and above clarifications case of the Petitioner for grant of benefit of Assured Carrier Prog r ession Scheme was examined in the year 2009 and it w as revealed that the Petitioner has earned the below m entioned Annual Confidential Reports during his service as Naib Tehsildar:

¶21

Sr. No.	Year	Overall Assessment
1.	1993-1994	Average
2.	1994-1995	Very Good
3.	1995-1996	Not in file
4.	1996-1997	Average
5.	1997-1998	Conveyed(Average)
6.	1998-1999	Not in file
7.	1999-2000	Good
8.	2000-2001	No report Certificate
9.	2001-2002	Average
10.	2002-2003	Not in file
11.	2003-2004	Good
12.	2004-2005	Average
13.	2005-2006	No Report Certificate

¶22

PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.14 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶23

��

¶24

��

¶25

As at no stage two out of three Annual Confidential Reports of the Petition e r were good and even at no stage 50% Annual C onfidential Reports of the Petitioner had been g o od, as per rules and above instructions, Petitioner h as not been found eligible to get the benefit of Assured Progress Scheme. Accordingly, the petitio n er is wrongly blaming the said instructions dated 10.0 1 .2000 and dated 16.01.2001 mis-interpreting them an d on this very ground this Civil Writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be dismissed.”

¶26

The adverse remarks in the A C R relating to the year 1997-98 which are a dmitted as having been commu n icated to him, were expunged vide order dated 20.03.2002 (Annexure P-7), the petitioner having submitted a representation thereto. As re g ards, the ACRs for the years 1993-94, 1 9 94-95 and 1995-96, the same h aving not been conveyed, are liable to be disregarded when determining t h e benchmark as has been held by this Co u rt in Dr. Gurdev Singh Bhardwaj vs. State of Punjab and others¹ , pl a cing reliance on the judgment o f Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India² , against w hich LPA has been dismissed vide order d ated 20.12.2012, relevant paras thereof read thus:

¶27

“12. Following the dictum laid down by the Apex Court, it is clear that the average report relating to the yea r 2005-06 which clearly had an adverse effect in s ofar as consideration of the petitioner for purp o ses of promotion to the higher post of Senior M e dical Officer, was required to be conveyed to hi m . Accordingly, it is held that the ACR for the y ear 2005-06 having not been

¶28

��2013(1) R SJ 474

¶29

��(2008) 8 S CC 725

¶30

PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.14 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶31

��

¶32

��

¶33

communicated to t he petitioner was liable to be ignored while dete r mining the bench mark. 13. That apart , I find that the respondentauthorities have acted arbitrarily in not considering the A CR of the petitioner for the year 2007-08. Th e right of an employee to be considered for pr o motion is a fundamental right under Article 16 o f the Constitution of India. It is not just a right o f consideration but, in fact, an obligation cast up o n the employer to afford a fair consideration to a n employee in terms of the principles of serv i ce jurisprudence. It has been admitted that the p etitioner had been graded 'very good' for the yea r 2007-08 and such report had been duly receive d but was not available at the time of preparati o n of agenda submitted before the Departmental Promotion Committee. This cannot be a basis f or denying to the petitioner the grading in terms o f assigning three numbers for such 'very good' r e port for the year 2007-08. 14. Learned c ounsel appearing for the petitioner would bring to my notice that the petitioner has since retired on 29.2.2012, having attained the age o f superannuation. 15. Accordingl y , I allow the present petition in terms of directi n g the respondent-authorities to re-consider the c laim of the petitioner for promotion to the p ost of Senior Medical Officer in terms of determ i ning the bench mark afresh by ignoring the AC R for the year 2005-06 and in terms of taking i n to account the five previous ACRs i.e. for the y ears 2008-09, 2007-08, 200607, 2004-05 and 2 003-04. It is further directed that if in pursuanc e to such exercise, which shall be concluded posi t ively within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this or d er, the petitioner fulfils the requisite bench m a rk, then orders shall be issued promoting the pe t itioner to the post of Senior Medical Officer on a notional basis. The petitioner in such e ventuality would also be held entitled to notion a l pay fixation on the post of Senior Medical O fficer as on the date of his superannuation a n d would be released the revised pensionar y /retiral benefits accordingly.”

¶34

PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.14 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶35

��

¶36

Learned counsel, at this stag e , on instructions, prays that a direction b e issued to the respondents to re-examine the matter, taking into acco u nt the aforementioned judgment and ignoring the aforementi o ned ACRs, in a time bound m anner, to which learned State counsel ha s no objection.

¶37

In view of the above and wit h out commenting on the merits of the cas e , this petition is hereby dispo s ed of with a direction to the respondent s to have a relook at the matt e r in the light of the aforesaid judgment, b y ignoring the above specifie d ACRs, within a period of six months, w h ich this Court has no reason t o believe the authorities would not addres s in a just, fair and reasonable manner. Upon doing so, after notice and h earing offered to him and if f o und entitled, grant the benefit forthwith. N eedless to say, if the orders a re adverse to his interest, the same shall contain reasons and the petitio n er shall be free to seek legal redress the r eupon.

¶38

09.01.2025

¶39

parveen kumar

¶40

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶41

Whet h er speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whet h er reportable : Yes / No

¶42

PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.14 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Shabdesh Kumar v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shabdesh Kumar v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldip Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Dr Gagandeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gopal Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Aashi Sharda and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rajinder Bir Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sareen Rani Vs State of Punjab and Others