High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/32953/2019disposed of

Satnam Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

2019-11-15Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi2 pages

CWP-32953-2019 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-32953-2019 Date of decision: - 15.11.2019 Satnam Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: - Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.

*** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner argues that prior to date of superannuation of the petitioner, there were 13 vacancies, which were available in the cadre of Superintendent Grade-II and the petitioner was within the zone of consideration against the said 13 vacancies, but no action was taken by the respondent-department to fill those vacancies, which defeated the right of the petitioner for promotion before he superannuated on 31.03.2016.

Counsel for the petitioner further argues that though, after attaining the age of superannuation, petitioner was granted extension of two years and was in service up to 31.03.2018, the persons junior to the petitioner were promoted against those vacancies on 21.10.2016 and petitioner had to work under his juniors though he was entitled for promotion against those very vacancies, which were in existence before NARESH KUMAR 2019.11.21 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP-32953-2019 -2he attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2016. The prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of a direction to the respondents to consider his claim for the grant of promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II against the 13 vacancies available before he attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2016.

Counsel for the petitioner states that prior to the retirement, petitioner has submitted a representation dated 18.03.2016 (Annexure P-3), which is still pending consideration with the respondents and the petitioner will be satisfied, at this stage, in case a time bound direction is issued to respondent No.1 to decide the said representations. In view of the request made, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the claim being made by the petitioner, respondent No.1 is directed to decide the representation dated 18.03.2016 (Annexure P-3) by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Present writ petition stands disposed of.

( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) November 15, 2019 JUDGE naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking?

Yes Whether reportable?

No NARESH KUMAR 2019.11.21 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh