IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.657 of 2010 Date of decision : 1.3.2011 Gian Chand ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Ravinder Malik Ravi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.R.S.Sathi, Advocate for respondent No.5. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with a prayer that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued for quashing the order dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure P6) and also to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Superintendent (District Level) with effect from 19.9.2008, on which date the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee took place and the name of the petitioner was considered and recommended for the said post, with all consequential benefits flowing therefrom. The petitioner averred in his petition that he was appointed C.W.P.No.657 of 2010 -2- as Peon on 25.9.1970 and promoted to the post of Clerk on 20.4.1976 and as Accountant/Information Centre Assistant on 26.2.1990. It is averred that even since the date of his last promotion he has worked continuously and was thus eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent (District Level) for which the eligibility is 10 years' experience as an Accountant/Information Centre Assistant. He was due to be considered after acquiring this eligibility on 20.2.2000. He further averred that since there was no post available he continued to work as Accountant/Information Centre Assistant. On 31.3.2008 sanction was received for the posts of newly created District Public Relation Officers as a result 104 posts belonging to different categories were created and 13 posts of Superintendent (Districe Level) had fallen vacant. Since these posts were available the Departmental Promotion Committee conducted its proceedings on 19.9.2008 and recommended the name of the petitioner along with other eligible persons for promotion. Reference has been made to Annexure P-5 which is supportive of this plea of the petitioner. The petitioner was due to attain the age of superannuation on 31.10.2008. It has been further averred that the official respondents did not give effect to the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee and thus he made a representation to the authorities to implement the said recommendation. But the official respondents did not do so and rather on 12.11.2008, after he had attained the age of superannuation, they recommended the names of some of the persons who were also similarly considered with the petitioner on 19.9.2008 by the Departmental Promotion Committee. These persons were promoted C.W.P.No.657 of 2010 -3- pursuant to the order dated 12.11.2008 which has been attached as Annexure P-6 to the petition. The petitioner again represented to the respondents on 26.11.2008, which was followed by reminders, but no action was taken. The petitioner then sought information under the Right to Information Act on 23.1.2009 and as per the information supplied to the queries put by him he was informed that there were total 67 posts of the gazetted officers which were to be filled up during the year 2006, 2007 and 2008. Out of these 21 posts of Superintendent (District Level) were filled up during these three years. It was further given out to him that the process of promotion to the post of Superintendent (District Level) has been completed by the Department within a period of two months from the date when the posts were got vacated and the persons who were considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee were thus promoted as Superintendent (District Level). As per the information supplied to the petitioner, it is only the petitioner who was singularly isolated and not given the promotion. The petitioner further averred that Smt.Darshana, respondent No.5 was promoted on 10.12.2008 even though the order dated 12.11.2008 by which the other persons were promoted indicated that Smt.Darshana did not have the requisite experience and it was ordered that her promotion would be considered from 1.12.2008 when one Shyam Sunder, Superintendent (District Level) superannuated, implying thereby that Smt.Darshana was not having the requisite experience, yet they made an order promoting her. The petitioner thus makes a grievance of the fact that despite the fact that the Departmental Promotion Committee C.W.P.No.657 of 2010 -4- recommended his name, he was not promoted, while respondent No.5, Smt. Darshana, despite not having requisite eligibility conditions, was promoted with effect from a subsequent date when one Shyam Sunder was due to superannuate. He thus pleaded that the action of the officials respondents is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is liable to be set aside. The official respondents, in response to the notice of motion issued by this Court, have filed their reply and admitted that the name of the petitioner was recommended in the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 19.9.2008 but by the time the order was implemented on 11.11.2008, the petitioner had retired and thus he was deprived of the promotion because the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee was implemented at a subsequent date. The promotion of Smt. Darshana, respondent No.5 was justified to say that it was made applicable from 1.12.2008 when one Shri Shyam Sunder was to retire and it was pleaded that the petitioner cannot make any grouse thereof. Respondent No.5 has filed separate reply and questioned the locus of the petitioner to challenge her promotion especially when he has stood superannuated. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the official respondents are wrong in declining the promotion to the petitioner. Once the Departmental Promotion Committee had recommended the name of the petitioner, there was no occasion to withhold such promotion from him. A person who is in employment always has a legitimate expectation and aspiration to get promoted to C.W.P.No.657 of 2010 -5- the next post and thus to deny him such a promotion on account of some laxity in the implementation of the recommendation of a duly constituted committee would be too harsh. Such a promotion not only fulfills the aspirations of an employee but also entails the benefits attached to it which also have spiraling effect. No justification has been offered by the official respondents to show that why the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee was not accepted promptly. If the respondents could pass an order regarding the promotion of Smt. Darshana, which was to take effect from the date when she acquired the eligibility, then a similar promptness could also be shown in the case of the petitioner. As there has been no justification for the said action of the official respondents, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves to be promoted as Superintendent (District Level). Since the petitioner has retired, hence the promotion which shall be offered to him will be notional only with no monetary benefits accruing therefrom except that the said promotion shall be considered while fixing the pension of the petitioner. In so far as the challenge which the petitioner has made to the promotion of Smt. Darshana is concerned, I am afraid the same is misplaced, as the petitioner having superannuated has hardly any surviving grievance against her promotion. Consequently, the petition is partly accepted and the petitioner is granted notional promotion with effect from 12.11.2008 when other similarly situated persons were promoted while accepting the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee. In C.W.P.No.657 of 2010 -6- so far as the challenge to the promotion of Smt. Darshana, respondent No.5 is concerned, the same is declined. Disposed of. 1.3.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss