IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14872 of 1991 (O&M) Date of decision:25.08.2011 Nasib Chand son of Karam Chand, and others ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab, through Chief Secretary to Government Punjab, Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents II. Civil Writ Petition No.16351 of 1991 (O&M) Dalip Singh Ahuja, Accountant office of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala. ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab, through the Secretary to Government Punjab, Excise and Taxation Department, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents III. Civil Writ Petition No.16757 of 1991 (O&M) Ramesh Chander son of Ganga Ram, Camp Clerk, presently posted in the office of Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Kapurthala, and others. ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab, through Chief Secretary to Government Punjab, Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Civil Writ Petition No.14872 of 1991 (O&M) - 2 - Present: Mr. Ankur Soni, Advocate, for Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. In all the writ petitions, the issue for consideration is, whether the denial of promotion from the post as a Clerk to Inspector in the Excise and Taxation Department was justified or not. The eligibility for promotion was originally a pass in the Punjab State Assistant Grade Examination prescribed under the 1984 Rules. All the petitioners admittedly had not passed such examination. However, they claimed benefit under a notification issued by the Government of Punjab Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms on 22.01.1991 that provided as follows:- “In exercise of the powers conferred under rule 12 of the Punjab State Assistant Grade Examination Rules 1984, the President of India is pleased to exempt from qualifying the Assistant Grade Test, all such persons who completed 18 years of regular service as Clerks/Senior Clerks/Junior Assistants. These orders shall take immediate effect.” The claim was, therefore, that the petitioners, who had completed 18 years of service, were exempt from the requirement of having to pass the examination. Civil Writ Petition No.14872 of 1991 (O&M) - 3 - 2. The petitioners would also point out that it so happened that some of the juniors, who had passed the examination before 21.01.1991, had gained promotion and if under the exemption, the seniors were to be promoted on the basis of 18 years of experience whether the persons juniors, who had already obtained promotion, were to be reverted or not. On a notification issued on 02.05.1991, the Government clarified that all the vacancies prior to 21.01.1991 should be filled up by promotion amongst the persons, who had qualified the Assistant Grade Examination before 21.01.1991 on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and such persons, who had completed 18 years of service and who would claim the benefit and the exemption notification would be promoted only on the available vacancies on or after 21.01.1991. If this notification were to be fully given effect, it would have been possible for the petitioners to claim a promotion on the basis of exemption only against the available vacancies. The doubts were expressed as regards the application of exemption notification on whether the incumbents, who had passed the examination, were to be promoted first or persons, who had been exempted were to be promoted. It was decided that the promotion would be done on seniority-cum-merit basis which meant that the Clerks, who had completed 18 years of regular service and who had been exempted, being seniors, would be promoted on the basis of such seniority. However, subsequently, promotion orders had been issued to 17 persons, of whom, two were juniors to the petitioners and subsequently on 30.07.1991, three persons had been promoted, all of whom were juniors. The petitioners, who had completed 18 years of service and who had the Civil Writ Petition No.14872 of 1991 (O&M) - 4 - benefit of exemption could not have been denied promotion when the juniors were promoted on subsequent dates by the only fact that the latter had passed the examination. I agree with the contention that the denial of promotion to the petitioners was not justified as contended. 3. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have retired now and the 7th petitioners was dismissed from service. All the petitioners would be treated as notionally promoted from the date when the juniors were promoted, namely, on 30.07.1991 and all the monetary benefits shall be calculated on such basis and paid to them within a period of 12 weeks. As regards the 7th respondent in CWP No.14872 of 1991, who is reported to have been dismissed from service, the benefits that accrued to him till the date of his dismissal shall be worked out and paid to him. If the amounts are not paid within the time as stipulated, they shall also be entitled for interest at 7.5% from today. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 25.08.2011 sanjeev