Harinder Pal Singh v. Jatinder Bir Singh And ORS.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH **** COCP No.3243 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.12.2019 Harinder Pal Singh Petitioner
Versus
Jatinder Bir Singh, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Punjab and Sind Bank, New Delhi and others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
Present:
Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. I.P. Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
**** AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (Oral):
The petitioner was working as Senior Manager with Punjab and Sind Bank and retired on 31.07.2018. On 13.06.2013, punishment of lower stage pay scale for one year without cumulative effect was imposed on him. Aggrieved of the order, appeal was filed, the same was rejected on 21.10.2013. Thereafter, CWP No.2006 of 2014 was filed, the petition was allowed on 12.01.2016, the impugned orders were set aside. The petitioner was held entitled to consequential benefits on account of setting aside of the impugned orders.
-2The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under:- "
!"
#"
% & $'
(
The petitioner could not be considered for promotion in the year 2014 and 2015, as a result of the punishment order passed in June 2013. The grievance raised is that even after setting aside of the said order, he was considered for promotion in the year 2016, 2017 and 2018 but not for the year 2014 and 2015. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that criteria of promotion has not changed over the years.
The criteria is reproduced below:
) '
* +
%"
, -$ .$
/0*/ 1 2 '
4 * +
4
%"
4 -$ .$
04( Learned counsel for the respondents contends that promotion was on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and the petitioner was considered for promotion in the year 2016, 2017 and 2018 but as per the results declared on 02.09.2016, 21.07.2017 and 14.05.2018 respectively, he failed to qualify. He further points out
-3that even during the consideration in the year 2011-12, he failed to qualify for promotion.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner could not make through the promotion for the year 2016, 2017 and 2018 as there was bias against him due to the litigation and he was not given appropriate marks.
It would be appropriate to mention that results of promotion were never challenged by the petitioner. There is no pleading or evidence on record to establish any bias. It is pertinent to note here that petitioner did not qualify for promotion when considered in 2010-11 when there was no litigation pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that respondents have wilfully disobeyed judgment of this Court, as the petitioner was not specifically considered for promotion due to him for the year 2014 and 2015. He fortifies his argument by submitting that a prejudice is caused to the petitioner as a result of the pending litigation against the punishment order.
There is no dispute on the fact that after the decision of the writ petition, the petitioner was considered thrice for promotion but he failed to make through. The matter would have been different, had he succeeded even once. At that stage, the question would have arisen as to whether the promotion is to be granted retrospectively, i.e., the date he became entitled to after succeeding in the litigation against the punishment order or not. There is another aspect of the matter, the contempt
-4proceedings are to be initiated in case there is wilful disobedience of positive directions of this Court.
The Supreme Court in Jhareswar Prasad Paul Vs. Tarak Nath Ganguly 2002(5) SCC 352 held as under:-
5
&
%
$ '
5
'
5
'
'
$
'
5
4 '
$
5
'
$
%
5
$ % '
5
6
% ) %
$
5
'' $
5
'
' 4
%
'
5
(
"
-5Supreme Court in Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and MD. ONGC and others Versus M. George Ravishekaran and others, held as under :
7! ) %
8 9
9
% $ $
9
9
9
#!
'
% $
$
% ) %
9
)
5
% % '
''
$ 9
'
%
'
% $ ' &
%
$
5
% :
5
'
%
4
$
$ ' %
(emphasis supplied) The issue raised in present petition is not that there is violation of positive directions of this Court for giving consequential benefits. Rather the challenge is that compliance of judgment is not done in a particular manner. There was no specific direction that promotions done for the year 2014-15 would be undone and thereafter the matter would be considered afresh.
-6The issue raised cannot be considered in proceeding for wilful disobedience of judgment of this Court. Keeping in view the above discussion, no interference is called for, the petition is dismissed.
[AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE December 10, 2019 45 $5