CWP No.6713 of 1986 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CWP No.6713 of 1986 Date of decision:19.09.2008. Mohkam Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents. CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Dr. Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Shreesh Gupta, Advocate. Mr. SS Sahu, AAG, Punjab. -- PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioner and the private respondents were working as Sectional Officers in the Public Works Department (Buildings & Roads) Branch. They were considered for promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Officers by the Punjab Public Service Commission in the year 1980 and vide letter dated 08.02.1980, the petitioner was found suitable alongwith respondent No.3, Piara Singh. Respondent Nos.4 and 5, Amarjit Bansal and Sat Paul Dhawan, respectively, were not considered for promotion due to bad service record. Subsequently, the State promoted respondent No.6 Ishwar Dass Sharma, whose name even did not figure in the list of the Punjab Public Service Commission as also respondent Nos.4, 5 and 3, ignoring the petitioner, who was also found suitable by the Punjab Public CWP No.6713 of 1986 -2- Service Commission vide order dated 21.01.1986 (Annexure P-5). On 03.11.1986 (Anexure P-6) the petitioner was also given current duty charge of the post of Sub Divisional Engineer against a vacant post at National Highway Sub Division No.2, 4-Lane Project, Ludhiana. The grievance of the petitioner is that Piara Singh was junior to him and he has been granted promotion vide order dated 21.01.1986 ignoring the right, claim and entitlement of the petitioner for such promotion even on temporary/ad hoc basis. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is admitted that the private respondents were promoted on temporary/ad hoc basis in accordance with the rules. There is no explanation as to how respondent No.6, Ishwar Dass Sharma, who was not even earlier considered for promotion by the Punjab Public Service Commission, came to be promoted. There is also no explanation with regard to respondent Nos.4 and 5, Amarjit Bansal and Sat Paul Dhawan, respectively, who were denied consideration for promotion on account of bad service records, came to be promoted ignoring the claim of the petitioner. Mr.Sahu, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently argued that all the promotions were temporary/ad hoc. None of the respondents were granted benefit of the post of Sub Divisional Engineers. CWP No.6713 of 1986 -3- No material has been placed on record to show that the promotions of the respondents continued on ad hoc basis or at any given time they were reverted to their substantive post. It is admitted position that respondent No.3, Piara Singh, was junior to the petitioner in the seniority list, though other respondents were senior to him. No reasons have been disclosed for denying promotion to the petitioner. I am informed that the petitioner as also the private respondents have now retired from service. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (i) Promote the petitioner to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer, with effect from the date respondent No.3, Piara Singh, was promoted i.e. 21.01.1986. (ii) If respondent No.3, Piara Singh, has been given the benefit of the pay scale of the Higher Post of Sub Divisional Engineer till the date of his retirement, the petitioner shall also be entitled to the same benefit and consequently the retrial benefits will also be re- determined on that basis. (iii) However, if it is found that Piara Singh was not given the pay scale of the Higher Post and he retired in the substantive scale of CWP No.6713 of 1986 -4- Junior Engineer, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any such benefit. (PERMOD KOHLI) 19.9.2008 JUDGE BLS Note: Whether referred to the Reporter? NO