CWP No.3359 of 2007.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.3359 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 31.01.2011 **** Mohd. Shafiq & Anr. . . . . Petitioners VS. Punjab Wakf Board & Ors. . . . . 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. SK Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate for respondents No.1&16 Mr. Rakesh Kaushik, Advocate for Mr. Raghujeet Singh Madan, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. GS Bhatti, Advocate for Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate for respondents No.8,9,10 & 17 Mr. BS Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.13 Mr. Suvir Kumar, Advocate for respondents No.15,16,22&25 Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.26 **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). Since on bifurcation of the erstwhile Punjab Wakf Board, the petitioners have remained/allocated to the Punjab CWP No.3359 of 2007.doc - 2 – Wakf Board, their writ petition qua respondents No.2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,12,15,16,21,22,24,26&27 is dismissed. (2). The petitioners are/were working as Rent Collectors in the Punjab Wakf Board. From the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioners are aggrieved by their non-promotion as Estate Officers. It is also alleged that though as per the Regulation 33 of the Punjab Wakf Regulations, 1966 (in short, ‘the 1966 Regulations’) “all the promotions to higher grades or ranks shall be on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness and merit”, the claim of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Estate Officers has been overlooked/ignored while promoting their juniors. (3). Learned counsel for the Punjab Wakf Board, on the other hand, relies upon the order dated 05.03.2002 (Annexure P6) to contend that the claim of the petitioners has been duly considered. A perusal of the above-stated order would reveal that the competent authority failed to apply Regulation 33 in its true letter and spirit and has merely referred to certain punishments imposed on the petitioners without any reference to their ACRs etc. (4). Suffice it to observe that the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioners for the relevant period along with their CWP No.3359 of 2007.doc - 3 – overall service record, ought to be taken into consideration while adjudging their fitness for promotion. (5). The impugned order dated 05.03.2002 (Annexure P6) is accordingly set aside and the Board is directed to re- consider the petitioners’ claim for promotion as Estate Officers strictly in accordance with the criteria of seniority-cum-fitness and merit, as laid down under Regulation 33 of the 1966 Regulations and as it existed at the time when the vacancies occurred and/or the juniors were promoted. The claim of the petitioners shall be re- considered within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (6). In case the petitioners are found suitable for promotion as Estate Officers, the consequential benefits shall also be granted to them till the date of their retirements, within the stipulated period. (7). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 31.01.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge