CWP No.17373 of 2007.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.17373 of 2007 Date of Decision: 05.03.2010 **** Dr. Devi Chand Mehta . . . . Petitioner VS. Director, Ayurveda (Punjab) & another . . . . . 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. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). Having regard to the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file their counter-reply/affidavit at this stage. (2). The petitioner joined the Ayurvedic Department, Government of Punjab as a ‘Vaidhya’ on 22.02.1975 and has retired from the post of Deputy Director, Ayurveda on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.09.2003. He seeks quashing of the order dated 18.05.2006 (Annexure P2), whereby, he has CWP No.17373 of 2007.doc - 2 – been held disentitled to the Proficiency Step-up after completion of 24 years of service under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) “because of his ACR report”. (3). It appears that the petitioner was never conveyed any adverse report during his service career. After the impugned order was passed, he sought and has been supplied the information under the Right to Informtion Act, which he has placed on record (Annexure P5 to P9). If one reads these reports, it appears that the service record of the petitioner for the relevant period was ‘Good’ or ‘Absolutely Good’. (4). It is the petitioner’s case that the above-mentioned service record was not available with the respondent when the impugned order dated 18.05.2006 (Annexure P2) was passed. (5). In the light of the above-stated plea and keeping in view the documents on record relied upon by the petitioner, I allow this writ petition to the extent that the impugned order dated 18.05.2006 (Annexure P2) is set aside with a direction to respondents No.1 and 2 as well as the State Government to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for the grant of Proficiency Step-up strictly as per the ACP Scheme after taking into consideration his relevant service record. The CWP No.17373 of 2007.doc - 3 – appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (6). Ordered accordingly. (7). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 05.03.2010 vishal shonkar