CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2016) 08 P&H CK 0344

Darshan Singh - Petitioner @HASH The State of Punjab and another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 2 August 2016 · Citation: (2017) 2 RSJ 332 : (2017) 1 SCT 234

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kuldip Singh, J.
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CWP No. 9781 of 2013 (O&M).

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 326 words

Kuldip Singh, J. (Oral)—This order of mine shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing CWP No.9781 of 2013 and 8627 of 2016, involving the same subject matter.

2.

The short controversy in the present petition is that the petitioner Darshan Singh, who was working as Social Studies Master in the Govt. school retired on 31.01.2012 and petitioner Promila Sharma, who was working as Hindi Mistress in the Govt. school, retired on 30.04.2012. It is claimed that the Departmental Promotion Committee held its meeting on 13.12.2011 to 15.12.2011 and promoted both the petitioners as Lecturers.

3.

However, after the superannuation of the petitioners, the Department passed the promotion order on 18.05.2012, whereby the petitioners were promoted as Lecturers. Now, the petitioners claim that they should be granted the benefits of deemed promotion after their retirement.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.

5.

It comes out that the department DPC is merely to recommend the names for promotion and it is for the concerned authority to accept the recommendation or not. It is clear that formal promotion order was passed on 18.05.2012 when the petitioner had already been retired. Apparently, the authority failed to notice the fact that after holding the DPC meeting, the promotion order was passed when the petitioner had already been retired from the service. It is merely a clerical error. Therefore, the promotion order of the petitioners was wrongly passed. Admittedly a retired person cannot be promoted unless it is specifically mentioned that the promotion is with the retrospective effect or is deemed promotion. The promotion order was passed on 18.05.2012 and at that time the petitioners were not in service as they already stood retired prior to that. Since the petitioners retired from service before passing of the promotion order, therefore, they cannot be granted the promotion as well as the consequential benefits.

6.

As such, both the petitions are dismissed.