IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 6708 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 14.05.2009 Balvir Singh .... PETITIONER Versus Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioner has filed this petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 6.2.2007 (Annexure P-9), whereby his claim for retrospective promotion as Assistant Engineer with effect from 18.12.2001, the date when his juniors were promoted as such, has been rejected; and further for issuance of direction to the respondents to give retrospective promotion to the petitioner as Assistant Engineer with effect from 18.12.2001 and as Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from 10.1.2006, with all consequential benefits. Initially, the petitioner was appointed in the respondent Board CWP No. 6708 of 2007 -2- as a Lineman. Subsequently, in the year 1988, he was selected and appointed as Junior Engineer. In the year 1998, he acquired AMIE Degree, after taking approval from the department. In the seniority list of Junior Engineers with AMIE Degree qualification, the petitioner figured at Serial Number 133. On 18.12.2001, certain Junior Engineers were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. It is the case of the petitioner that the officers from Serial No. 8 to 17 in the promotion order (Annexure P-2) were junior to him. At the time of the said promotion, claim of the petitioner was not considered. It is further case of the petitioner that on 12.12.2003, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer, whereas according to him, he should have been promoted with effect from 18.12.2001. In the written statement, filed on behalf of respondent No.2, it has been stated that claim of the petitioner for promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer was considered in the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as `the D.P.C.') held on 28.11.2001, but he could not achieve the requisite benchmark of 13, therefore, his claim was ignored. Thereafter, another meeting of the D.P.C. was held on 4.2.2002. The claim of the petitioner was again considered, but this time also he could not secure the requisite points. Third time, his claim was considered in the meeting of the D.P.C. held on 13.1.2003 and this time again, he did not achieve the requisite benchmark and was not found eligible for promotion. In the 4th meeting of the D.P.C., held on 24.9.2003, the claim of the petitioner was again considered and he CWP No. 6708 of 2007 -3- was found eligible for promotion. Consequently, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 12.12.2003. Now, the case of the petitioner is that his claim was wrongly rejected in the meeting of the D.P.C., held on 13.1.2003. As per the written statement, in the said meeting, the petitioner was awarded 12.41 points. Counsel for the petitioner submits that if in view of the instructions dated 18.2.1997, the petitioner would have been given one point on account of letter of appreciation issued to him on 29.11.2002 for not participating in the strike of the employees of the respondent Board on 16.4.2002, then his total points would have risen to 13.41 and in this way, he would have become eligible for promotion to the said post on 13.1.2003. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent Board submits that as per the instructions dated 18.2.1997, for processing the promotion case, ACR of the current year ending 31st March is required to be taken into account. On 13.1.2003, ACR of the petitioner for the period ending on 31st March, 2002 was taken into consideration. As far as the counting of one point for securing letter of appreciation for not participating in the strike of the employees of the respondent Board is concerned, it has been submitted that the said strike was held on 16.4.2002, in which the petitioner did not participate and for that, in view of the Board decision dated 8.5.2002, an appreciation letter dated 29.11.2002 was issued to him. It has been further submitted that the said benefit was not given to the petitioner because the said strike was held on 16.4.2002 and the CWP No. 6708 of 2007 -4- appreciation letter was issued on 29.11.2002, i.e. beyond 31.3.2002, the period of consideration. The D.P.C. meeting was held on 13.1.2003 and all the relevant ACRs and other material, which were available upto 31.3.2002, were considered in the said meeting. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the aforesaid decision of not taking into account the appreciation letter issued to the petitioner. In my view, the respondents have rightly ignored the appreciation letter, which was pertaining to the subsequent year i.e. 2003-04. As far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that case of the petitioner should have been considered for promotion with effect from 1.4.2003 is concerned, the same is not acceptable. The case of the petitioner was duly considered, when the D.P.C. meeting was held on 24.9.2003 and consequently, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 12.12.2003. As such, he is not eligible for promotion with effect from 1.4.2003. Thus, there is no merit in this petition. Dismissed. May 14, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) Monika/ndj JUDGE