Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2525 (PNJ)

Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab

2023-08-21

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2023
JUDGMENT Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. (Oral) CWP-17643-1996 (O&M) The present petition has been filed for seeking quashing of the seniority list dt.07.07.1995 whereby the respondents No.9 to 37 have been shown as promoted as Kanungos from the date of vacancy. 2. No one appears on behalf of the petitioners. The Writ Petition is pending since 1996 and is therefore taken up for hearing. 3. Learned counsel appearing for private respondents submits that all the respondents as well as the petitioners have retired. 4. The contention of the petitioners is that as the respondents did not perform their duties on the post of Kanungo, they could not have been promoted from the date vacancy had fallen with the department, and submits that the seniority list should be revised accordingly, and the promotions which have already been made from Kanungo to Naib Tehsildar be also revised. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that no further promotions have been made and all the persons who were granted promotion in 1995 and 1996 have in fact retired from the said post. The promotions awarded to the respondents were on the basis of the vacancies which had fallen in a particular year. A promotion can always be granted retrospectively from the date the posts have fallen vacant as the exercise of promotion can be done at any particular time after the vacancy has been created, and therefore no error can be said to have committed by the respondents. 6. So far as the State is concerned, reply has been filed on behalf of the Collector who has submitted that the appointing authority of Kanungo is Collector of the district. The seniority of the members of the service of each cadre is to be determined on the basis of continuous service on a post in each district. 7. It is also stated that the concerned Kanungos who have been promoted from the previous date were actually performing duties of Kanungo while drawing pay scale of Patwari. One Gurpreet Singh son of Karnail Singh filed a civil suit where stay order was passed on 31.05.1993, and the interim order was vacated on 11.02.1995. 7. It is also stated that the concerned Kanungos who have been promoted from the previous date were actually performing duties of Kanungo while drawing pay scale of Patwari. One Gurpreet Singh son of Karnail Singh filed a civil suit where stay order was passed on 31.05.1993, and the interim order was vacated on 11.02.1995. The promotion was given to respondents No.7 and 8 from back date as their promotion was due with effect from dates mentioned against their names and the seniority has also been placed accordingly in terms of Rule 11 of Punjab Kanungo Service (State Service Class III) Rules, 1976 and 1994. 8. The respondent/State has also pointed out that respondents No.7 and 8 were shown to be working as Kanungo w.e.f.10.03.1992 and then they were also directed to officiate as Naib Tehsildar in their own pay scale of Kanungo as they had passed the 7 papers while working at the cadre of Kanungo, and respondents No.7 and 8 were entitled to be promoted as Naib Tehsildar from the date they were directed to officiate as Naib Tehsildar. As regards the petitioners, they were also considered, however since they have only qualified 6 papers out of 8/4 papers out of 8, they could not be promoted while the respondents No.7 and 8 had passed 7 out of 8 papers. It is also stated that petitioner no.2 Jagdish Rai was facing departmental enquiry and petitioner no.3 Kabal Singh was also facing an enquiry on 20.07.1996. In view thereof, it is prayed that the claim of the petitioners be rejected. 9. I have considered the submissions. 10. Rule 10 of Punjab Naib Tehsildars (Class III) Service Rules, 1984 requires passing of departmental test for promotion. As respondents No.7 and 8 have passed the examination, they were entitled for promotion. The petitioners were not eligible for consideration for promotion for the post of Naib Tehsildar, therefore they would have no locus standi to challenge the promotion of respondents No.7 and 8. 11. As regards promotion on the post of Kanungo from a previous date is concerned, it is noticed that the respondents have been working on the higher post of Kanungo while drawing pay scale of lower post of Patwari. In view thereof, when the DPC met it has promoted them and granted benefit of promotion from the date they were actually performing duties of Kanungos. In view thereof, when the DPC met it has promoted them and granted benefit of promotion from the date they were actually performing duties of Kanungos. Such action of the respondents cannot be objected and this Court finds that due justice has been given to those who were actually working and performing duties of a higher post. The delay in conducting DPCs should not affect and deprive the due promotion from an earlier date. 12. Keeping in view above, no case for interference is made out. 13. The Present Petition is found to be devoid of merits and is dismissed accordingly. 14. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. CWP-1136-1999 (O&M) 15. Keeping in view the law as discussed here in above, the claim of the petitioner challenging the retrospective promotion of the respondents is found to be without basis. 16. Dismissed. 17. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.