High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/73/2024dismissed

Ram Prakash Sharma v. State Of Punjab And Others

2024-01-08Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma2 pages

2023:PHHC:001072

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-73-2024 Date of Decision: 08.01.2024 Ram Prakash Sharma . . . . Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ****

Present:

Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

1. The petitioner claims promotion from the year 1995. Writ petition has been filed in the year 2024 based on a letter issued by the District Education Officer, Rupnagar on 21.01.2021 and the letter issued by the Assistant Director replying to the DEO with regard to the recommendation made by him for giving notional promotion to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner was pointedly asked as to why the petitioner has remained silent from the year 1995 up to 2021. There is no occasion for the District Education Officer, Rupnagar to have initiated a suo moto action for granting notional promotion to the petitioner in spite of the fact that there is no representation of the petitioner on record from 1995.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was given promotion in the year 2005 from 13.11.1993. However, this Court finds that the promotion granted to the petitioner from 13.11.1993 vide order dated MOHIT GOYAL 2024.01.08 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-73-2024 2023:PHHC:001072 16.05.2005 does not give any financial benefit. The said order is not under challenge.

4. Thereafter, the order has been passed on 21.01.2021 by the same District Education Officer recommending for giving notional benefits. Such orders passed by the District Education Officer in favour of an individual who has never claimed his promotion at the relevant time prima facie show abuse of exercise of power by the said District Education Officer. However, the exercise and recommendation made by the District Education Officer have been rejected rightly by the Assistant Director, Education.

5. No interference of this Court is warranted. Writ Petition suffers from gross laches and delay.

6. Writ Petition stands dismissed accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE January 08, 2024 Mohit goyal

1. Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No

2. Whether reportable?

Yes/No MOHIT GOYAL 2024.01.08 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document