Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 309 (HP)

B. R. RANOTE v. STATE OF H. R

2007-07-23

M.R.VERMA

body2007
JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J. Chairman.—The applicant herein has prayed for (i) setting aside the order Annexure A-6, (ii) declaring Annexure A-l void ab-initio to the extent it gives promotion to the applicant to the post of Superintendent Grade-I on notional basis instead of full salary and (iii) the respondents may be directed to pay the arrears of salary of the applicant after fixing his pay in the basic pay scale of Superintendent Grade-I w.e.f. 18.12.1997 the date of which he is entitled for promotion and also give all other consequential benefits. 2. The case of the applicant, in brief, is that he was working as Supdt. Grade-II in the I. & P.H. Department but was not given promotion for which he was entitled w.e.f. 18.12.1997. The respondents though promoted 12 officials but the applicant was not even considered for promotion despite being eligible. Aggrieved by non-consideration for promotion, the applicant made a representation which was accepted and the applicant was promoted w.e.f. 18.12.1997 vide Annexure A-l, but he was denied the monetary benefits of the promotion. He made another representation vide Annexure A-2 which was finally dismissed vide Annexure A-6. Hence, this original application. 3. It is averred in the reply filed by respondents that the applicant was promoted as Superintendent Grade-I on 18.12.1997 on notional basis, but monetary benefits were given to him w.e.f. 17.7.2000. The applicant was not formally appointed as Superintendent Grade-I, but was adjusted against a vacant post, therefore, was not entitled for the benefits as claimed more so because he has not discharged the duties as Superintendent Grade-I w.e.f. 18.12.1997 to 17.7.2000 and assumed the charge of the post of Superintendent Grade-I on 18.7.2000 (F.N.), therefore, the salary for the period of notional promotion has rightly been denied to him and he has been correctly given the monetary benefits of promotion from the date he actually joined post of Supdt. Grade-I. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents and have perused the material placed on record. 5. It clearly emerges from the pleadings of the parties that the applicant was eligible for being considered for promotion but the DPC at the relevant time did not consider his name presumably for the reasons that the department concerned did not put him in the list of eligible candidates for being A considered for promotion. 5. It clearly emerges from the pleadings of the parties that the applicant was eligible for being considered for promotion but the DPC at the relevant time did not consider his name presumably for the reasons that the department concerned did not put him in the list of eligible candidates for being A considered for promotion. On realizing their mistake on receipt of representation of the applicant the respondents convened a review DPC which found the applicant fit for promotion w.e.f. 18.12.1997 and recommended his promotion from the said date. The respondents, however gave only notional promotion to the applicant from 18.12.1997 for the period on the ground that he did not discharge the duties of a Superintendent Grade-I. 6. It is clear in the facts and circumstances of the case that the applicant has in fact been penalized by depriving him of his dues evidently for the mistake/negligence committed by concerned officer/officials of the department who did not take appropriate care to furnish full and correct information to the DPC about the applicant who was eligible for being considered for promotion which resulted in denial of promotion to the applicant when it was due. Evidently, for lapses, dereliction of duty and j faults on the part of the department and its employees other than the i applicant, the applicant cannot be made to suffer. 7. In Purshotant Lal v. State of H.P. (O.A. 113/1990, decided on 1.12.2006), a Division Bench of this Tribunal while dealing with almost a similar situation held as under:— "5. It is not the case of the respondents that even if the applicant would have been considered for promotion by 1994 D.P.C. there was any compelling reason to assume that he would not have been promoted. In fact by giving promotion to the applicant w.e.f. March 30, 1994 by the respondents themselves they have by necessary implications conceded that there was no reason to deny the promotion to the applicant from the said date. Thus, the applicant who was lawfully entitled for being considered and promoted w.e.f. March 30, 1994 was not so promoted by the respondents and thus could not discharge the duties of Pandit is no reason to deny the pay to the applicant for the period of promotion which has been treated as notional. Thus, the applicant who was lawfully entitled for being considered and promoted w.e.f. March 30, 1994 was not so promoted by the respondents and thus could not discharge the duties of Pandit is no reason to deny the pay to the applicant for the period of promotion which has been treated as notional. In the facts and circumstances of the case the applicant ought to have been and should be deemed to have been promoted as Pandit w.e.f. March 30, 1994 on regular basis with all consequential benefits including the financial benefits." 8. It may also be pointed out here with regard to the plea of the respondents that during the relevant period for which the monetary benefits have been denied to the applicant by virtue of his notional promotion vide Annexure A-l he did not discharge the duties and function of Superintendent Grade-I that the applicant had in fact discharged the duties of Supdt. Grade I as is evident from the contents of letter Annexure A- 3 from the Engineer-in-Chief, I&PH to the Financial Commissioner-cum- Secretary (I&PH) to the Government of H.P., the relevant portion whereof reads as under:— "In this respect, it is stated that since Sh. B.R. Ranote had been working in Establishment Section-I against the post of Supdt. Grade I, performing the duties against the post of Supdt. Grade I w.e.f. 12.3.1997, (Copy of posting orders enclosed) as such the claim of Sh. B.R. Ranote, Supdt. Gr. I for monetary benefit w.e.f. 18.12.1997 especially when he had been performing the duty against the Supdt. Gr. I is justified...." 9. The aforesaid contents of Annexure A-3 clearly admit that during the relevant period the applicant had been performing duties of Superintendent Grade-I pursuant to the order of his posting as such. The respondents in no way have explained as to why this admission on the part of the Engineer-in-Chief, under whom the applicant was serving at the relevant time, should be ignored. 10. It is unfortunate that respondents instead of taking appropriate action against the officers/officials whose failure to place correct eligibility positions before the first DPC the respondents took a stand of virtually punishing the applicant for no fault on his part by not allowing him monetary V benefits of promotion to which he was legitimately entitled. 11. 10. It is unfortunate that respondents instead of taking appropriate action against the officers/officials whose failure to place correct eligibility positions before the first DPC the respondents took a stand of virtually punishing the applicant for no fault on his part by not allowing him monetary V benefits of promotion to which he was legitimately entitled. 11. In view of the above, this original application is allowed and impugned order Annexure A-l is quashed and set aside to the extent it promotes the applicant as Superintendent Grade-I on notional basis Annexure A-6 being illegal is also quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to modify the promotion order of the applicant as if he had j been promoted on regular basis with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 18.12.1997 and pay him all consequential benefits like pay fixation, arrears of pay and pension. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case the respondents having dragged the applicant to avoidable litigation by their unsustainable acts, are saddled with cost quantified in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the applicant. This order be implemented within six weeks. Application allowed.