Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2006 (PNJ)

Om Parkash v. State Of Punjab

2006-05-09

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, P.S.PATWALIA

body2006
Judgment J. S. KHEHAR, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the prayer made by the petitioner, namely, for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II with effect from the date persons junior to him were promoted, as such, has been acknowledged in the order dated 2.2.2005 appended to the written statement as annexure R-1. It is further pointed out that consequent upon the acceptance of the petitioners claim, he has been notionally promoted as Superintendent Grade-II w. e. f.1.1.2000. 2. The solitary grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 2.2.2005 (Annexure R-1) also acknowledges that persons junior to the petitioner were promoted as Superintendent Grade-II w. e. f.29.12.1997. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is also entitled to promotion w. e. f.29.12.1997. 3. As against the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that promotion to the cadre of Superintendent Grade-II is under review and that promotion orders made in respect of persons junior to the petitioner are liable to be altered in such a manner that the petitioner in terms of his seniority will only be entitled to promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II w. e. f.1.1.2000. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents seems to be in line with the assertion contained in order dated 2.2.2005 and is liable to be accepted, subject to the condition that persons junior to the petitioner who have been promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-II are granted, on review, dates of promotion which are not earlier to the date of promotion of the petitioner. If the process of review results in the contemplated action in terms of the order dated 2.2.2005 (Annexure R-1), nothing further subsists in the instant writ petition. 5. However, if on review the respondents are not in a position to alter the dates of promotion, of those otherwise junior to him, to the post of Superintendent Grade-II, to a date, later than this date of promotion to the petitioner, the petitioner shall also be entitled to promotion with effect from the dates as persons junior to him have been granted promotions. 6. Accordingly, we direct that the contemplated action in the order dated 2.2.2005 be completed within six months from today. 6. Accordingly, we direct that the contemplated action in the order dated 2.2.2005 be completed within six months from today. In case it is not possible to alter the date of promotion of persons junior to the petitioner, who have been admittedly promoted with effect from dates prior to him, the petitioner shall also be entitled to promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II, with effect from the date persons junior to him have been promoted. In such an eventuality, the petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits. Allowed in the aforesaid terms.