Sukhpreet Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Decided on : 24.03.2025 SUKHPREET SINGH . . .Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI PRESENT: Mr. G. S. Bal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Laxman Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. TPS Chawla, Sr. DAG, Punjab, assisted by Mr. Gurdeep Singh, Superintendent Grade-I Department of Water Resources Department.

**** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) 1.

In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 10.04.2024 (Annexure P-10) by which, the claim of the petitioner for the grant of retrospective promotion to the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer has been rejected by the respondents.

2.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that no reason has been mentioned in the impugned order as to why the claim of the petitioner has been rejected, even though, the claim of the petitioner was required to be considered as per the direction given by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 17396 of 2012 titled as Sandeep Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 10.01.2017, copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-2, which judgment has been implemented qua various others similarly situated employees so as to grant them the benefit of retrospective promotion to the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer, whereas, the claim of the petitioner is not being considered in the same manner.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. TPS Chawla, Sr. DAG, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and on instructions from Mr. Gurdeep Singh, Superintendent Grade-I, Department of Water Resources Department submits that the order dated 10.04.2024 (Annexure P-10) be treated as withdrawn and the claim of the petitioner will be considered keeping in view the judgment passed in CWP No. 17396 of 2012 titled as Sandeep Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others as well as the consequent orders passed in the case of others Sub Divisional Engineers and an appropriate speaking order will be passed within a period of eight weeks of the receipt of certified copy of this order. 5.

Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that in case, the claim of the petitioner is found feasible to be accepted, an appropriate order will be passed and in case the same is not found feasible to be accepted, detailed reasons for rejecting the claim of the petitioner will be mentioned in the speaking order.

6.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view the statement of learned State counsel, the present petition may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further. 7.

Ordered accordingly.

8.

Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of.

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 24.03.2025 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No