CWP No.11765 of 2009.doc - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.11765 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.08.2011 **** Chand Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & 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. KL Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is a Class-IV employee working as Helper in the Water Supply and Sanitation Department, Government of Punjab. Even after completing 14 years of service, the benefit of ACP has been denied to the petitioner on the basis of the alleged adverse remarks contained in his ACR for the years 2005-06 and 2006- 07. This fact has been duly conveyed to him by the Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation (RWS) Division, Faridkot vide memo dated 27.08.2008 (Annexure P2). It would be useful to reproduce the above-stated communication which reads as follows:- CWP No.11765 of 2009.doc - 2 - Vide your letter referred to above, you had sent application in original of Sh. Chand Singh, Helper for the grant of 14 years ACP becoming due and payable on 1.11.2006. The ACRs of the employee for the previous 5 years have been perused. Following adverse remarks have been shown in them:- Period Description of Rolls Remarks 17.11.05 to 31.3.2006 Is he eligible for promotion No 11.4.06 to 17.7.06 (A) Efficiency Good (below average) (B) Dependency Good (below average) 8.8.06 to 20.12.06 Dependency Not satisfactory 20.12.06 to 31.03.07 (A) Efficiency Good (below average) (B) Dependency Good (below average) On account of the above mentioned remarks in the ACRs of the employee, he was not found eligible as per Govt. instructions, for the grant of 14 years ACP falling due and payable from 1.11.2006. The employees be informed accordingly.” (2). In their reply/affidavit also, the respondents are singing the same song alleging that the Junior Engineer who inspected the work and conduct of the petitioner did not found his performance satisfactory and adverse remarks have been recorded. The respondents rely upon another CWP No.11765 of 2009.doc - 3 - communication dated 17.09.2007 (Annexure R1/T) conveying the adverse remarks to the petitioner and the same reads as follows:- “For the period of 21.12.06 to 31.3.2007 in the recommendations roll of you, following adverse remarks has been mentioned as per detail mentioned below:- 5. Remarks: (a) Efficiency : Good (below average) (b) Dependency: Good (as above) (c) Continuation of attendance: Good (as above) In case you want to say anything in this regard, then you can submit your clarification within the 21 years (sic) from the receipt of this letter. (3). The preliminary submission No.2 contained in the reply/affidavit dated 08.04.2010 has also been pressed into aid which reads as follows:- “That the brief facts of the case are such that the petitioner was employed as Helper of Plumber/fitter vide letter dated 28.3.1980 and the petitioner has joined his duty on 01.04.1980 (FN) and since then the petitioner has been rendering his duty as Helper CWP No.11765 of 2009.doc - 4 - (Class-IV category) and he is also being paid the admissible salary of Class-IV.” (4). In preliminary submission No.3, the respondents have strongly averred that if the petitioner’s claim is accepted and it shall amount to granting him salary of Pump Operator which is not tenable. (5). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner has been treated in a most unfair and arbitrary manner by the respondents. Firstly, the Junior Engineer or the Executive Engineer who are said to have recorded and/or approved the ‘adverse remarks’ are ignorant of the basic norms for writing a confidential report of an employee. How on earth the petitioner’s efficiency, who is reported as ‘Good’ and ‘Efficient’ can at the same time be termed to be ‘Below Average’. Similarly, if the Dependency of the petitioner is ‘Good’, how he has been graded as ‘Below Average’, cannot be understood. Similar, inconsistent remarks have been recorded in 17.09.2007 (Annexure R1/T). The manner in which the remarks have been recorded suggests nothing but a calculated attempt to harass the petitioner. (6). The petitioner had joined the Department on 01.04.1980. The adverse remarks relied upon by the CWP No.11765 of 2009.doc - 5 - respondents pertain to the period from 17.11.2005 to 31.03.2007. It may be pertinent to mention here that the petitioner became due for grant of ACP on completion of 14 years of service w.e.f. 01.11.2006. The remarks are apparently a cloak to stall and deprive him of the due benefit. (7). The plea that the petitioner is claiming the pay-scale of Pump Operator is hollow and farce. The petitioner is claiming ACP strictly in accordance with Government policy/Rules on completion of 14 years of service. If such a pay scale is incidentally equivalent to what is admissible to a Pump Operator it does not mean that the petitioner is asking for a pay scale admissible to a Pump Operator. (8). Since the so-called adverse remarks are held to be totally inconsistent and lack supporting material, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned communication dated 27.08.2008 (Annexure P2) as well as 17.09.2007 (Annexure R1/T) are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to grant ACP to the petitioner on completion of 14 years of service w.e.f. 01.11.2006 with all consequential benefits, arrears along with interest @ 6% per annum. Besides, the petitioner shall also be entitled to cost of Rs.10,000/- which shall be personally recoverable from the Junior CWP No.11765 of 2009.doc - 6 - Engineer and the Executive Engineer of the respondent- Department, proportionately. (9). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 19.08.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge