C.W.P. No.10341 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.10341 of 1988 Date of Decision: 08.12.2008 Krishan Lal Kohli ..........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ............Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Sahu, AAG, Punjab. PERMOD KOHLI J. (ORAL) ******** The petitioner was appointed by the Government of Punjab on 25.10.1962 in the pay scale of Rs.500-1000 to the post of Superintendent redesignated as Senior Technical Officer, Development and Testing Centre for Sound Products, Jalandhar. This post, however, was renamed as Industrial Development-cum-Quality Marking Centre for Electrical and Engineering Jalandhar in the Punjab Industries Service Class I. It is alleged that the post of the petitioner was equivalent to rank of Deputy Director Class I in the year 1962. The petitioner was granted three advance increments on his first appointment and was confirmed on his post on 17.10.1966. The petitioner was granted benefit of the pay revision from time to time. It is alleged that the petitioner's pay was fixed at Rs.5900/- in the revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1986 thereafter, no further increment was available to him. Petitioner's claim was that he was entitled to the regular common cadre of the officers of the Department. He has mentioned as many as nine persons, who were also holding isolated posts in Class I and Class II service but later on brought on the regular common cadre of the C.W.P. No.10341 of 1988 -2- Department. Accordingly their pay scales and seniority was fixed in the said cadre. They were also considered for promotion to the higher posts. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite his representation he was not considered for inclusion in the regular common cadre whereas similar representations of other officers named in para 5 of the petition were accepted. In response to one of the representations of the petitioner, the respondents vide letter dated 16.09.1972 stated that the channel of promotion in the Technical Cadre can be considered after formulation of Class I and II Officers Rules of the Department. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that State Government framed the service conditions of the officers of the Department called Punjab Industries Service (State Service) Class I Rules, 1980. These rules were framed for the State of Punjab in the Industries Department and petitioner was also working in the same department. Even when these rules were framed, the petitioner's post was not brought in the regular common cadre. It is on account of apathy on the part of the respondents that petitioner was denied promotional chances throughout his career. The petitioner, however, was compulsorily retired on 19.10.1989 but before his retirement he was never considered for promotion. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Raghunath Prasad Singh Vs. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Govt. of Bihar and others AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1033 observed as under:- “Before we part with the appeal, we would like to take notice of another aspect. In course of hearing of the appeal, to a query made by us, learned counsel for the appellant indicated the reason as to why the appellant was anxious to switch over to the general cadre. He relied upon two or three communications which are a part of the record where it has been indicated that there is no promotional opportunity available in the wireless organisation. Reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of the public service that generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service. In the absence of promotional prospects, the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire C.W.P. No.10341 of 1988 -3- to serve properly. We would, therefore, direct the State of Bihar to provide at least two promotional opportunities to the officers of the State Police in the wireless organisation within six months from today by appropriate amendments of Rules. In case the State of Bihar fails to comply with this direction, it should, within two months thereafter, give a fresh opportunity to personnel in the Police Wireless Organisation to exercise option to revert to the general cadre and that benefit should be extended to everyone in the wireless organisation.” In the reply filed by the respondents, the only plea raised is that the petitioner was appointed on an isolated post which was specifically created for the specific purpose and the isolated post cannot be brought on the common cadre. However, in reply to para 5, respondents have admitted that all those persons named in para 5 of the writ petition though appointed against the isolated posts were later on brought on the common cadre on their representations. There is no distinctive feature so far as the petitioner and those persons are concerned. Even while disposing of the representation of the petitioner, the respondents clearly stated that the promotional channels shall be provided to the petitioner as and when rules framed. As noticed herein, even when rules were framed above in the year 1980, no such provision was made therein. The petitioner throughout his career remained on isolated post. In view of the Annexure P-2, the petitioner was at least entitled to be considered for placement in the common cadre when the Class I Rules were framed w.e.f. November, 1980. The petitioner has been treated with discrimination and hostility, however, similarly situated persons have been granted the benefit of placement in the regular common cadre but similar treatment has been denied to the petitioner for no valid reasons. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (i) to consider the petitioner for placement in the common cadre w.e.f. November 1980 when the Class I Service Rules referred to above were framed. C.W.P. No.10341 of 1988 -4- (ii) to induct the petitioner against an equivalent cadre/pay scale. (iii) petitioner be considered for further promotion, if available, under the Service Rules and if on such consideration the petitioner is found to be eligible and suitable, he may be allowed such benefit as permissible under Rules. Consequently, his retiral benefits shall also be redetermined and refixed. Let this exercise be completed within a period of four months from the date of certified copy of this order is made available to the respondents. December 08, 2008 (PERMOD KOHLI) Pankaj* JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the reporter? Yes/No