IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7778 of 2007 Date of Decision: July 06, 2009 Achhru Ram .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) Achhru Ram son of Thakur Mal has filed this civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing orders dated 18.3.2005 (Annexure P-6) and 17.10.2006 (Annexure P-8) under which the respondents have denied the claim of the petitioner for grant of benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (for short, `ACP Scheme’). Prayer has also been made for issuance CWP No.7778 of 2007 [2] of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of benefits under the ACP Scheme in the light of Order dated 29.12.2005 (Annexure P-7). The contentions addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the pleadings bring out the facts that the petitioner joined as Assistant Treasurer in the year 1976 on adhoc basis. His services were regularised w.e.f. 30.9.1980 as Assistant Treasurer. It has been pointed out that a punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner in the year 1986. The petitioner impugned the said punishment, however, the Civil Court upheld the punishment. Be that as it may, the effect of the punishment ceased in the year 1987. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner became entitled to an increment under the ACP Scheme on completion of 8 years of service. The case of the petitioner for grant of benefit under the ACP Scheme was considered by the respondents and service record of the petitioner was summoned. The Treasury Officer, Samana, vide Memo dated 17.12.1993 reported to the District Treasury Officer, Patiala, that the CWP No.7778 of 2007 [3] work and conduct of the petitioner was satisfactory. In this regard, learned counsel has referred to Annexure P-1. The pleadings indicate that a complaint was made against the petitioner and after conducting a departmental enquiry, punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect was also imposed in the year 1994. The Director (Treasury & Accounts) Finance Department, Punjab, vide Communication dated 27.10.1997 informed the petitioner about adverse remarks for the year 1996-97 recorded in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner. The remarks alleged “angry nature, lack in socialisation and bad handwriting”. An appeal was filed by the petitioner against the adverse remarks which however was dismissed. The petitioner made several representations for grant of benefit under the ACP Scheme which, however, was not granted. A perusal of Annexure P-4 indicates that the Finance Department, Government of Punjab, addressed a letter to the District Treasury Officer, Sangrur. The contents read as under:- “2. The promotion case of Shri Achhru Ram, Assistant CWP No.7778 of 2007 [4] Treasurer was re-examined on his application dated 16.6.2001 and he was also called for personal hearing on 7.8.2001. Since his service record is not good, therefore, he is not found fit for promotion and his application dated 16.6.2001 is rejected. The employee may be informed in this regard in hand-writing.” It seems that the petitioner kept on representing for his claim under ACP Scheme. Impugned order, Annexure P-6, in that regard has been issued, a copy whereof was sent to the petitioner. Under Annexure P-6, dated 18.3.2005, the petitioner has been informed that his case for grant of benefit under the ACP Scheme has been re-examined in the context of Government Instructions dated 25.9.1998 and 10.1.2000 and other instructions/ advices received from time to time on the subject. On the basis of record of service of the petitioner, he was not found to be eligible for benefit under the ACP Scheme. Under Annexure P-8, it seems that while considering the case of the petitioner for grant of benefits as claimed by him, reference has been made to Order dated 18.3.2005 i.e. Annexure P-6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was promoted in the year 2004 and therefore, the respondents cannot claim that his record did not entitle him to the grant of benefits under the ACP Scheme. Learned counsel for the respondent- CWP No.7778 of 2007 [5] State has referred to the contents of Para 3 of the reply (preliminary objections). Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court towards the extract of Instructions adopted by the State of Punjab in the context of the claim of the petitioner. While referring to Instructions dated 1.12.1988, learned counsel for the respondent-State has contended that “in adjudging the suitability for the proficiency step up(s), the procedure for assessing the work and conduct to be satisfactory as applicable to the case of promotion, shall be followed and it shall be given only if the employee is found suitable for the same. An employee who is not considered fit for proficiency step-up that is whose assessment of work and conduct is below the requisite standard, shall not be given additional increment(s), his regular increment if otherwise shall be released as usual”. Learned counsel has also referred to the Instructions issued on 25.9.1998. Para 4(i) of the said Instructions reads as under:- Para 4(i) “Placement in higher scale and proficiency step-up under this policy shall be granted only to those employees whose overall service record is adjudged as „Good‟ if a departmental test is prescribed or acquisition of higher level, then only those employee who clear text or acquire qualification would be eligible for benefits under this scheme.” CWP No.7778 of 2007 [6] Extract of Instructions dated 10.1.2000 reads as under:- “Doubts has been expressed by some quarters about the term overall service record is adjudged as „Good‟ and have sought clarification above this term. This matter has been considered in consultation with the Department of Finance and it is clarified that the term overall service record is adjudged as „Good‟ will that 50% reports should be „Good‟ & above including two of the last three reports. The rest of the reports should be/may satisfactory.” Learned counsel has supplied, in Court, the Resume of Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner to contend that by considering the work and conduct of the petitioner during his service from 1980-81 till 1998-99, it can safely be concluded that the petitioner could not have been promoted. Further, considering the criteria as laid down under the instructions and clarification referred to above, the petitioner could not be granted the relief under that ACP Scheme if the overall record of the petitioner is considered for the given period. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties. The resume/precis of the Annual Confidential Reports in respect of the petitioner is required to be considered for adjudicating the issue, which reads as under:- RESUME OF ANNUAL CONFIDENTIAL REPORT IN RESPECT OF SHRI ACHHRU RAM ASSISTANT TREASURER S/O SHRI THAKUR MAL CWP No.7778 of 2007 [7] Sr. No. Period of Report Overall Assessment Remarks, if any 1. 1980-81 Average 2. 1981-82 Average 3. 1982-83 Average 4. 1983-84 Average 5. 1984-85 Average 6. 1985-86 Average 7. 1986-87 Average 8. 1987-88 Average One increment stopped without cumulative effect by DTO vide orders dated 24-2-1987. 9. 1988-89 Average 10. 1989-90 Good 11. 1990-91 Good 12. 1991-92 Average 13. 1992-93 Average 14. 1993-94 Average 15. 1994-95 Good 16. 1995-96 Good 17. Stopped one annual increment without cumulative effect vide orders dated 21-4-1997. 18. 1996-97 Below Average 19. 1997-98 Average 20. 1998-99 Average 21. 1999-2000 Good 22. 2000-2001 Good 23. 2001-2002 Good 24. 2002-2003 Good 25. 2003-2004 Good Perusal of the precis of the Annual Confidential Reports indicates that from 1980-81 till 1988-89, the overall assessment of the petitioner remained ‘Average’. Thereafter, from 1991-92 till 1993-94, it has been recorded as ‘Average’, and further from 1997-98 to 1998-99, the overall assessment of the petitioner has been recorded as `Average’. For 1996-97, the petitioner has been assessed ‘Below Average’. For the intervening 4 years only, the petitioner had earned ‘Good’ reports. I also find that the petitioner was CWP No.7778 of 2007 [8] promoted in the year 2004, possibly for the reason that after 1999-2000, the overall assessment of the petitioner was recorded as ‘Good’. I have also taken into account the fact that during the given relevant period for which the claim has been made, the petitioner had been punished twice. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in these circumstances, has not been able to show that the case of the petitioner was covered under the Instructions/ clarification issued by the Government of Punjab from time to time which have been extracted above, from the written statement. Learned counsel has not been able to show that infact the petitioner had good reports so as to entitle him to the benefits under the ACP Scheme. The promotion of the petitioner in 2004 is dehors the controversy as it relates to a subsequent period and has been granted on the basis of later `good’ reports. The Instructions have not been challenged in this petition. In view of the above, considering the record of the petitioner, I do not find any ground to allow the claim of the petitioner. Further, considering the record of the petitioner CWP No.7778 of 2007 [9] for the relevant period in the context of the instructions applicable in that regard to which reference has been made hereinabove, the decision of respondents in not granting benefit under ACP Scheme cannot be termed as unreasonable. Under the circumstances, orders Annexure P-6 and P-8 do not call for any interference. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) July 06, 2009 JUDGE avin