CWP No. 12262-CAT of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12262-CAT of 2007 Date of Decision 14.12.2010 Union of India and others -----Petitioners Versus CAT and another ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The Union of India and its officers have approached this Court by filing the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging order dated 11.04.2007 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal'), holding that the original applicant-respondent would be entitled to grant of benefit under the Biennial Cadre Review Scheme (for brevity 'the BCRS ') w.e.f. 16.04.1995 in terms of the judgment of a Full Bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Piran Ditta v. Union of India and others, 2005 (1) A.T.J. 430. 2. On facts, it is undisputed that the original applicant- CWP No. 12262-CAT of 2007 -2- respondent entered into service on 16.04.1969 and completed 26 years of service on 16.04.1995. However, when his case was considered by the DPC on 19.02.1996, the proceedings in pursuance of charge-sheet issued under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 (for brevity 'the Rules'), were pending against him. Therefore, the Departmental Promotion Committee vide its order dated 26.02.1996 (Annexure P-2) did not allow the benefit of the BCRS to the original applicant-respondent. The disciplinary proceedings culminated in imposition of penalty vide order dated 30.06.1997 and the original applicant was subjected to recovery of a sum of Rs. 8809/- along with penal interest of Rs. 2109/-. The punishment of reduction of pay by four steps w.e.f. 01.07.1997 was also inflicted upon him vide order dated 30.06.1997. 3. It has further remained undisputed that on 11.08.1997 his period of suspension from 02.01.1996 to 06.07.1997 was ordered to be treated as non-duty period. The petitioner was eventually given the benefit of BCRS w.e.f. 07.07.2001 vide order dated 28.05.2002 (Annexure P-3) after the effect of punishment was over. On the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal has quashed the order dated 12.08.2004 (Annexure P-6), rejecting the representation made by the original applicant-respondent and has issued direction for re-considering the claim of original applicant-respondent w.e.f. 16.04.1995. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and are of the view that the original applicant-respondent CWP No. 12262-CAT of 2007 -3- remained under the shadow of punishment period from 07.07.1997 to 07.07.2001 i.e. slightly over four years. It has come on record that he had completed 26 years of service on 16.04.1995. It is well settled that the petitioner could not have been granted the benefit of promotion or the higher scale under the BCRS during the currency of the period of penalty. For the aforesaid proposition, reliance may be placed on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, 1991 Suppl. (1) SCC 804. If the period of four years is added to the date of completion of 26 years, which is 16.04.1995, then the original applicant-respondent would complete 26 years on 23.04.1999 (a period of four years, seven days has been added to postpone the grant of benefit of BCRS). Accordingly, the direction issued by the Tribunal are modified and the petitioners are directed to consider the case of the original applicant-respondent w.e.f. 23.04.1999 for grant of benefit under BCRS. The writ petition stands disposed of. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE December 14, 2010 Atul