C.W.P. No.16436 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.16436 of 1991 Date of Decision: 20.2.2008 Sham Lal Sharma .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and another ...Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Chaudhary, DAG, Haryana. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for issuance of a writ of Certiorari or such other writ, order or direction for quashing the order dated 13.9.1991, whereby the petitioner has been denied promotion to the post of Deputy Labour Commissioner w.e.f. 30.5.1979, the date, on which his immediate junior Ram Sarup Chaudhary was promoted to the post of Deputy Labour Commissioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to an order dated 23.8.1990 passed in CWP No.1776 of 1986, the respondents, reconsidered the petitioner's claim for promotion to the post of Deputy Labour Commissioner, but instead of promoting him from the date his junior was promoted, an order dated 13.9.1991 was passed, granting promotion with effect from 16.8.1982. It is submitted that the petitioner has been denied promotion w.e.f. 30.5.1979 on an erroneous assumption that during the period of consideration i.e. 10 years preceding 30.5.1979, the C.W.P. No.16436 of 1991 2 petitioner did not earn 50% good, average or better reports. It is submitted that a perusal of the Annual Confidential Reports earned by the petitioner for the years 1969-70 to 1978-79, reveals that the petitioner has earned more than 50% good reports and, therefore, should be ordered to be promoted from the date his junior was promoted to the post of Deputy Labour Commissioner. It is further asserted that the order retiring the petitioner pre- maturely was quashed by this Court in CWP No.2594 of 1986 decided on 23.8.1990 by observing that adverse report for the year 1972-73 cannot be acted upon. The respondents have, however, taken into consideration the said report. It is also submitted that the report for the year 1975-76, which is recorded as quite satisfactory, has to be considered as good and not average. It is further submitted that the adverse remarks for the year 1970-71 were expunged, pursuant to an order dated 8.1.1973 passed by the Commissioner, Labour and Employment and Secretary to Government Haryana and therefore, the average report should have been considered as good. It is also pointed out that the adverse remarks for the year 1971-72 were also expunged, pursuant to order dated 8.11.1973 passed by the same authority. In view of the aforementioned facts, it is asserted that the order Annexure P-4 is not only incorrect but discloses a failure on the part of the respondents to consider all relevant material, while reconsidering the petitioner's claim for promotion. Counsel for the respondents, however, asserts that the petitioner's claim for promotion was reconsidered and as the petitioner had not earned 50% good reports, during the relevant period, he could not be C.W.P. No.16436 of 1991 3 promoted with effect from 30.5.1979,the date his junior was promoted. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It is not denied that the petitioner's claim for promotion to the post of Deputy Labour Commissioner, with effect from 30.5.1979, has to be considered, in accordance with his service record for the period of 10 years, preceding the aforementioned date. The petitioner's claim for promotion w.e.f. 30.5.1979 has been rejected on the ground that he did not earn 50% good reports. The said ground appears to be incorrect in view of the facts detailed hereinafter. The adverse remarks for the year 1972-73 were in essence expungned by this Court in CWP No.2594 of 1986, relevant extract whereof reads as under :- “The most interesting aspect of the case is that one adverse entry was recorded against the petitioner in the year 1972-73 by respondent No.2 Shri M.Kuttappan (since deceased) Against the said adverse entry, the petitioner submitted the representation which was rejected by the same officer who had recorded the adverse entry. It is a settled principleof law that one cannot be judge of his own cause. A perusal of the confidential report of the petitioner also indicates that the same officer in the annual confidential report doubted the integrity of the petitioner without quoting any instance of alleged corruption. I am of the view that when the authority comes to the conclusion that the official has doubtful integrity, then instances which created a doubt about the integrity of the official have to be recorded. In the instant case, no instance of C.W.P. No.16436 of 1991 4 corruption whatsoever was recorded. As such the adverse entry for the year 1972-73 cannot be acted upon.” The adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72, were expunged pursuant to orders Annexures P-1 and P-2 dated 8.1.1973 and 8.11.1973 respectively. These orders have not been considered. It is, therefore, apparent that reconsideration of the petitioner's claim for promotion was seriously flawed for failure to consider all relevant material. The impugned order, therefore, discloses an abject failure on the part of the respondents to apply their mind or to consider all relevant material. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order Annexure P-4, in so far as it denies promotion to the petitioner to the post of Deputy Labour Commissioner with effect from 30.5.1979 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Department of Labour and Employment, to consider the petitioners claim for promotion to the post of Deputy Labour Commissioner with effect from 30.5.1979, the date on which his junior was promoted, in accordance with law after taking into consideration the material referred to herein above or any other material that may be relevant for a just adjudication of the controversy and to pass orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. 20.2.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE