HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.15473 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.04.2011 **** Sham Lal Saini . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. HC Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rupinder Khosla, Addl. AG Punjab **** RANJAN GOGOI, C.J. (ORAL) (1). This PIL has been filed seeking interference of the Court with the actions of the State of Punjab in conferring the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ACP Scheme’) to a large number of persons who, according to the petitioner, were not entitled to such benefit. The petitioner has stated and averred that the benefit under the ACP Scheme is to be granted only on the basis of ‘Good’ ACR. However, in the present case, by an order dated 06.08.2000 (Annexure P2), ‘Average’ / ‘Satisfactory’ ACRs have been directed to be treated as ‘Good’ ACRs. Accordingly, acting on the basis of the said Government order (Annexure P2), undue CWP No.15473 of 2009.doc - 2 – benefits have been given to a large number of doctors who had ‘Average’ gradings in their ACRs. Hence this PIL has been filed. (2). The respondent-State has filed an affidavit to the effect that the order dated 06.08.2000 (Annexure P2) had been withdrawn and a review of a large number of cases that were considered on the basis of the said order, has been carried out. Specifically, it is stated by Mr. Khosla, learned Addl. AG Punjab that 352 cases have been reviewed by the State Government and the number of cases that remain to be reviewed are 26 only. Mr. Khosla has further submitted that on the basis of the review exercise, the situation has been corrected except that the benefits already drawn are not being recovered. (3). In view of the action taken by the State Government in the matter, we are of the view that this PIL should not call for any other order except that the remaining 26 cases be also reviewed by the State Government and the exercise completed within a period of two months from today. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that monetary benefits already drawn by the concerned persons need not be recovered from them. CWP No.15473 of 2009.doc - 3 – (4). Sh. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a further issue which is to the effect that in large number of cases i.e. 233 in number, though ACRs were not available, the concerned doctors were treated as having ‘Good’ ACRs. (5). The aforesaid aspect of the case has not been pleaded in the present PIL. That apart, there is a distinct and definite procedure for the award of gradings in cases where ACRs are not available. What are the circumstances in which the grading of ‘Good’ has been given in such cases, is not known. This Court, therefore, declines to go into the said issue but leaves it open for the petitioner to agitate the same in an appropriate manner if so advised and so inclined. (6). This will dispose of the present PIL. (RANJAN GOGOI) Chief Justice 21.04.2011 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) Judge