HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.16545 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.08.2011 **** Pardeep Singh Kaleka & Ors. . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab & Anr. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. HS Sethi, Advocate Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s) Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab **** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.4290 of 2002 & 16545 of 2010 as the issues involved are common in nature. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.16545 of 2010. (2). The short grievance of the petitioner(s) is that though they have been promoted as Deputy Directors on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in purported compliace of the orders dated 29.03.2010 and 18.05.2010 passed by this Court in CWP No.11241 of 2000 (Annexure P3 & P4), nevertheless CWP No.16545 of 2010.doc - 2 - the second order dated 18.05.2010 (Annexure P4) has not been complied with in its true letter and spirit. The real grievance of the petitioner(s) appears to be against the prospective promotions as, according to them, the year- wise selection/merit list ought to have been prepared moreso when they acquired the eligibility way back and the vacancies were also available but no promotion could be made due to the stay order passed by this Court. In other words, the petitioner(s) press into aid the well- known doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the Court shall prejudice no one). (3). The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit broadly admitting the factual position. (4). In this regard, paragraphs No.2(i) to (iii) of the reply on merits is quite relevant and read as follows:- “2. That the contents as stated in Para No.2 of the writ petition are wrong and hence denied. In this regard, it is submitted that in the year 2000 CWP No.11241 of 2000 was filed by one Sh. Pritam Singh Dhaliwal and Sh. Bahadur Singh who were working as DDPO in this Department and the said writ petition was admitted in the year 2001 and the Department was restrained to finalise the promotion for the post of Deputy Director and Joint Director. CWP No.16545 of 2010.doc - 3 - Thereafter, the petitioners filed a Civil Misc. No.3321 and 3322 of 2010 in CWP NO.11241 of 2000. The said Civil Misc. was taken by this Hon’ble Court on 29.3.2010 and in compliance of the orders dated 29.03.2010 the matter regarding giving promotion to the petitioners was taken up on 14.7.2010 and in this regard the following decision were taken by the DPC:- (i) Yearwise panel of the officers is to be prepared. (ii) The recommendations of DPC dated 13.8.1998 cannot be accepted at this stage. (iii) The recommendations dated 26.2.2002 in which suitability of the officers was taken up cannot be accepted at this stage because at that time interim order of the Hon’ble High Court was in operation.” (5). It is thus apparent that the DPC was convened and some recommendations were made in the year 1998 but the same could not be given effect due to the ad interim stay granted by this Court. (6). In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to re-adjudge the eligibility and suitability of the officials for their CWP No.16545 of 2010.doc - 4 - retrospective promotion as and when the vacancy(ies) were available. These directions shall be applicable in relation to the DPCs convened prior to or after 2002 shall equally apply even to those officers who are not the writ- petitioners and/or have meanwhile retired from service. It is, however, directed that in the event of grant of retrospective promotions to the petitioner(s) or other officer(s), no arrears shall be paid to them and such promotions shall be granted notionally only. (7). It is made clear that the promotion to the higher post(s), if any, shall depend upon the final outcome of the review DPC as directed above. (8). The needful shall be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (9). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 25.08.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge