IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.7778 of 2007
Date of Decision: July 06, 2009
Achhru Ram
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & Others
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy
Advocate General, Punjab, for the
respondents.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
Achhru Ram son of Thakur Mal has
filed this civil writ petition under Article
226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for
issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari
quashing orders dated 18.3.2005 (Annexure P-6)
and 17.10.2006 (Annexure P-8) under which the
respondents have denied the claim of the
petitioner for grant of benefit under the Assured
Career Progression Scheme (for short, `ACP
Scheme’). Prayer has also been made for issuance
CWP No.7778 of 2007 [2]
of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to consider the claim of the
petitioner for grant of benefits under the ACP
Scheme in the light of Order dated 29.12.2005
(Annexure P-7).
The contentions addressed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the
pleadings bring out the facts that the petitioner
joined as Assistant Treasurer in the year 1976 on
adhoc basis. His services were regularised w.e.f.
30.9.1980 as Assistant Treasurer. It has been
pointed out that a punishment of stoppage of one
increment without cumulative effect was imposed
on the petitioner in the year 1986. The
petitioner impugned the said punishment, however,
the Civil Court upheld the punishment. Be that as
it may, the effect of the punishment ceased in
the year 1987.
Learned counsel contends that the
petitioner became entitled to an increment under
the ACP Scheme on completion of 8 years of
service. The case of the petitioner for grant of
benefit under the ACP Scheme was considered by
the respondents and service record of the
petitioner was summoned. The Treasury Officer,
Samana, vide Memo dated 17.12.1993 reported to
the District Treasury Officer, Patiala, that the
CWP No.7778 of 2007 [3]
work and conduct of the petitioner was
satisfactory. In this regard, learned counsel has
referred to Annexure P-1.
The pleadings indicate that a complaint was made against the petitioner and after conducting a departmental enquiry,
punishment of stoppage of one increment without
cumulative effect was also imposed in the year
1994.
The Director (Treasury & Accounts)
Finance Department, Punjab, vide Communication
dated 27.10.1997 informed the petitioner about
adverse remarks for the year 1996-97 recorded in
the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner.
The remarks alleged “angry nature, lack in
socialisation and bad handwriting”. An appeal was
filed by the petitioner against the adverse
remarks which however was dismissed.
The petitioner made several
representations for grant of benefit under the
ACP Scheme which, however, was not granted.
A perusal of Annexure P-4 indicates
that the Finance Department, Government of
Punjab, addressed a letter to the District
Treasury Officer, Sangrur. The contents read as
under:-
“2. The promotion case of Shri Achhru Ram, Assistant
CWP No.7778 of 2007 [4]
Treasurer was re-examined on his application dated
16.6.2001 and he was also called for personal hearing on
7.8.2001. Since his service record is not good, therefore,
he is not found fit for promotion and his application dated
16.6.2001 is rejected. The employee may be informed in
this regard in hand-writing.”
It seems that the petitioner kept
on representing for his claim under ACP Scheme.
Impugned order, Annexure P-6, in that regard has
been issued, a copy whereof was sent to the
petitioner. Under Annexure P-6, dated 18.3.2005,
the petitioner has been informed that his case
for grant of benefit under the ACP Scheme has
been re-examined in the context of Government
Instructions dated 25.9.1998 and 10.1.2000 and
other instructions/ advices received from time to
time on the subject. On the basis of record of
service of the petitioner, he was not found to be
eligible for benefit under the ACP Scheme.
Under Annexure P-8, it seems that
while considering the case of the petitioner for
grant of benefits as claimed by him, reference
has been made to Order dated 18.3.2005 i.e.
Annexure P-6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that the petitioner was promoted in the
year 2004 and therefore, the respondents cannot
claim that his record did not entitle him to the
grant of benefits under the ACP Scheme.
Learned counsel for the respondent-
CWP No.7778 of 2007 [5]
State has referred to the contents of Para 3 of
the reply (preliminary objections). Learned
counsel has drawn the attention of the Court
towards the extract of Instructions adopted by
the State of Punjab in the context of the claim
of the petitioner. While referring to
Instructions dated 1.12.1988, learned counsel for
the respondent-State has contended that “in
adjudging the suitability for the proficiency
step up(s), the procedure for assessing the work
and conduct to be satisfactory as applicable to
the case of promotion, shall be followed and it
shall be given only if the employee is found
suitable for the same. An employee who is not
considered fit for proficiency step-up that is
whose assessment of work and conduct is below the
requisite standard, shall not be given additional
increment(s), his regular increment if otherwise
shall be released as usual”.
Learned counsel has also referred
to the Instructions issued on 25.9.1998. Para
4(i) of the said Instructions reads as under:-
Para 4(i)
“Placement in higher scale and proficiency step-up
under this policy shall be granted only to those
employees whose overall service record is adjudged
as „Good‟ if a departmental test is prescribed or
acquisition of higher level, then only those employee
who clear text or acquire qualification would be
eligible for benefits under this scheme.”
CWP No.7778 of 2007 [6]
Extract of Instructions dated
10.1.2000 reads as under:-
“Doubts has been expressed by some quarters about the
term overall service record is adjudged as „Good‟ and
have sought clarification above this term.
This matter has been considered in consultation with
the Department of Finance and it is clarified that the term
overall service record is adjudged as „Good‟ will that 50%
reports should be „Good‟ & above including two of the
last three reports. The rest of the reports should be/may
satisfactory.”
Learned counsel has supplied, in
Court, the Resume of Annual Confidential Reports
of the petitioner to contend that by considering
the work and conduct of the petitioner during his
service from 1980-81 till 1998-99, it can safely
be concluded that the petitioner could not have
been promoted. Further, considering the criteria
as laid down under the instructions and
clarification referred to above, the petitioner
could not be granted the relief under that ACP
Scheme if the overall record of the petitioner is
considered for the given period.
I have considered the contentions
of learned counsel for the parties.
The resume/precis of the Annual
Confidential Reports in respect of the petitioner
is required to be considered for adjudicating the
issue, which reads as under:-
RESUME OF ANNUAL CONFIDENTIAL REPORT IN
RESPECT OF SHRI ACHHRU RAM ASSISTANT
TREASURER S/O SHRI THAKUR MAL
CWP No.7778 of 2007 [7]Sr. No. Period of Overall Remarks, if any
Report Assessment
1. 1980-81 Average
2. 1981-82 Average
3. 1982-83 Average
4. 1983-84 Average
5. 1984-85 Average
6. 1985-86 Average
7. 1986-87 Average
8. 1987-88 Average One increment stopped without
cumulative effect by DTO vide orders
dated 24-2-1987.
9. 1988-89 Average
10. 1989-90 Good
11. 1990-91 Good
12. 1991-92 Average
13. 1992-93 Average
14. 1993-94 Average
15. 1994-95 Good
16. 1995-96 Good
17. Stopped one annual increment without
cumulative effect vide orders dated
21-4-1997.
18. 1996-97 Below Average
19. 1997-98 Average
20. 1998-99 Average
21. 1999-2000 Good
22. 2000-2001 Good
23. 2001-2002 Good
24. 2002-2003 Good
25. 2003-2004 Good
Perusal of the precis of the Annual
Confidential Reports indicates that from 1980-81
till 1988-89, the overall assessment of the
petitioner remained ‘Average’. Thereafter, from
1991-92 till 1993-94, it has been recorded as
‘Average’, and further from 1997-98 to 1998-99,
the overall assessment of the petitioner has been
recorded as `Average’.
For 1996-97, the petitioner has
been assessed ‘Below Average’.
For the intervening 4 years only,
the petitioner had earned ‘Good’ reports.
I also find that the petitioner was
CWP No.7778 of 2007 [8]
promoted in the year 2004, possibly for the
reason that after 1999-2000, the overall
assessment of the petitioner was recorded as
‘Good’.
I have also taken into account the
fact that during the given relevant period for
which the claim has been made, the petitioner had
been punished twice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner,
in these circumstances, has not been able to show
that the case of the petitioner was covered under
the Instructions/ clarification issued by the
Government of Punjab from time to time which have
been extracted above, from the written statement.
Learned counsel has not been able to show that
infact the petitioner had good reports so as to
entitle him to the benefits under the ACP Scheme.
The promotion of the petitioner in 2004 is dehors
the controversy as it relates to a subsequent
period and has been granted on the basis of later
`good’ reports.
The Instructions have not been
challenged in this petition.
In view of the above, considering
the record of the petitioner, I do not find any
ground to allow the claim of the petitioner.
Further, considering the record of the petitioner
CWP No.7778 of 2007 [9]
for the relevant period in the context of the
instructions applicable in that regard to which
reference has been made hereinabove, the decision
of respondents in not granting benefit under ACP
Scheme cannot be termed as unreasonable. Under
the circumstances, orders Annexure P-6 and P-8 do
not call for any interference.
The petition is dismissed.
(AJAI LAMBA)
July 06, 2009 JUDGE
avin