IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 2614 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 07.10.2009 M.S. Walia ... PETITIONER Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Narender Hooda & Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocates, for the respondents. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner has retired as Junior Engineer-I from the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation Sub Division No.2, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Ambala Cantt, on 31.10.2004, on attaining the age of superannuation. In the instant petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 25.8.2006, passed by respondent No.2, whereby he has been allowed to cross efficiency bar at the stage of Rs. 850/- in the scale of Rs. 750-1250, raising his pay from Rs. 850/- to Rs. 900/- per month, with effect from 1.4.1986 instead of 11.5.1983. It is the case of the petitioner that though he was eligible for crossing of the efficiency bar with effect from 11.5.1983, CWP No. 2614 of 2009 -2- but the same was not allowed, on the ground that upto 31.3.1986 he had not earned more than 50% good reports in the previous 10 years. It is the conceded position that as per the Government instructions dated 10.7.1974, an employee should possess at least 50% good reports in the previous 10 years for the purpose of crossing of the efficiency bar. In the written statement, filed on behalf of the respondents, detail of the Annual Confidential Report has been given. It is again admitted position that as on 11.5.1983 and subsequently upto 31.3.1986, the petitioner did not possess 50% of the good reports. It is also admitted position that in the year 1974-75, integrity of the petitioner was reported to be doubtful. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the average reports, which have been taken against the petitioner, were not communicated to him, therefore, the same can not be taken as adverse reports. If those reports are taken as Good, then the petitioner was possessing more than 50% good reports and was entitled for allowing the crossing of efficiency bar with effect from 11.5.1983. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt Versus Union of India, 2008 (5) SLR 252. After hearing counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the instant petition. At the relevant time, as per the Service Rules/ instructions, the adverse reports were not to be communicated to the employee. The instructions dated 10.7.1974 provide that for crossing of the efficiency bar, the employee should possess 50% good reports. CWP No. 2614 of 2009 -3- Undisputedly, the petitioner was not possessing 50% good reports on 11.5.1983. He possessed 50% good reports on 31.3.1986, therefore, his efficiency bar was crossed with effect from 1.4.1986. Merely because, the average reports were not communicated, the same could not be taken as good reports. The aforesaid judgment does not lay down that un- communicated average reports be treated as good reports. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that as per the Service Rules/instructions, the respondents were bound to consider the claim of the petitioner for crossing the efficiency on 11.5.1983, when the efficiency bar had become due and thereafter review the same annually, so as to enable the petitioner to improve his efficiency, but according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order was passed after 23 years, therefore, the same is bad in law. I do not find any force in this contention. In the present case, the record of the employee was destroyed in the year 1990 during the anti-reservation stir, therefore, even the retiral benefits of the petitioner could not be paid in time. After re-constituting the record, all the service benefits were released to the petitioner and the order of crossing the efficiency bar was passed. Thus, I do not find any illegality in passing of the impugned order at a later stage. In view of the above, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed. October 07, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE