CWP No.352 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.352 of 1996 Date of decision : 05-08-2010 Kali Ram .... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate, with Ms. Sonia Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Himanshu Raj, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent – State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) Petitioner has assailed promotion order dated 15.05.1995 Annexure P-5 and order dated 22.12.1995, Annexure P-7, whereby respondent Nos.4 to 27 were promoted as Ziledars. It has been further prayed that petitioner being senior to respondent Nos.4 to 27 was entitled to promotion and, therefore, he be promoted from the date when his juniors were promoted and all consequential benefits should flow to the petitioner. Petitioner has specifically averred in Para 8 of the writ petition as under:- “8. That it seems, better sense prevailed over the authorities with the result that the petitioner has not been touched and he is continuing as HRC. But notwithstanding all that, respondents No.4-27 who undoubtedly are junior to the petitioner have been promoted to the next higher post of Zilledar in the grade of Rs.1640-2900/-, without considering CWP No.352 of 1996 -2- his superior claim for the said promotion. It may be mentioned that the said promotion to the post of Zilledar is governed by a separate set of statutory rules called the Punjab PWD (Irrigation Branch) Zilledar, State Service, Class III Rules, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Service Rules.” This plea has been further reiterated in Para 11 of the writ petition wherein it is stated that in the seniority list respondent Nos.4 to 27 were placed lower than the petitioner. In the written statement filed, it has not been denied that petitioner was senior to respondent Nos.4 to 27. However, it has been stated that post of Ziledar is a selection post and the Superintending Engineer has to recommend the name after preparing a list of eligible persons. It is stated that in the list formulated by the Superintending Engineer, name of the petitioner was not there. Therefore, he being not the recommendee of the Superintending Engineer was not considered fit for the promotion. Para 11 of the written statement filed by official respondents reads as under:- “11. In reply to para 11 of the civil writ petition it is submitted that as per provision of the rules 10(b) (I)&(II) of service rules and rule 11.2 of Manual of Administration, a list was prepared for the promotion as Zilledar in 4/95 and the name of the petitioner was not recommended by the Superintending Engineer, Bhakra Water Services Circle-I, Hisar for his promotion as Zilledar. It is further submitted that the promotion of Zilledar are not made by the seniority amongst the revenue staff as already explained in para 3, 6 & 8 on the written statement.” However, as to whether the petitioner was considered by CWP No.352 of 1996 -3- the Superintending Engineer or not, the written statement is silent about it. No record has been produced from which it is discernible that case of the petitioner was considered and rejected. For what reasons, the juniors to the petitioner were allowed to steel march over him cannot be comprehended on the basis of the averments made in the written statements filed by the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision rendered by this Court in Sadhu Singh versus The State of Haryana and another, CWP No.9209 of 1996 decided on 22.07.1997. In Sadhu Singh's case (supra) claim of the petitioner in that case was rejected on the ground that he had not applied for the post of Ziledar. Therefore, his name was not forwarded by the Superintending Engineer. The Court held that no application is required to be filed by eligible candidates. Admittedly, juniors to the petitioners have been promoted as Ziledars. Counsel for the State has submitted that State Government is in process of reviewing the orders of the juniors who were earlier promoted. Therefore, it becomes necessary that claim of the petitioner is considered by the authorities along with the orders of the juniors which are being reviewed. In the present case, since petitioner's case was not considered when admittedly his juniors were promoted, this Court is of the view that present writ petition is required to be disposed of by directing the official respondents to consider the case of petitioner for appointment to the post of Ziledar from the date his juniors were so CWP No.352 of 1996 -4- promoted vide orders (Annexures P-5 and P-7). Needless to mention here that if the petitioner is found otherwise suitable for appointment by promotion as Ziledar, the promotion orders will be issued to this effect. However, this is subject to the rider that maxim of 'no work no pay' shall apply and promotion granted to the petitioner will be notional. No financial benefit shall accrue to him. As a result of notional promotion, petitioner will, however, be entitled to terminal benefits. The present writ petition is disposed of as such. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 05-08-2010 JUDGE manju