AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in the present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is as under:-
1.A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to give promotion to the petitioner on the post of Labour Inspector w.e.f. the date of his eligibility i.e. 12.01.2009, instead of on the post of Deputy Superintendent, granted vide Office dated 22.03.2023 (Annexure P-28) being contrary to the settled norms, inter alia for the reasons mentioned in the writ petition;
2.For quashing of transfer order bearing Endst No.Estt./02/2023/7056-70 dated 27.03.2023 (Annexure P-29) qua petitioner, whereby inspite of the fact that he is suffering from benchmark locomotor disability to the extent of 80%, has been ordered to be transferred from Sirsa to Hisar;
3.For quashing of order dated 16.03.2021 bearing Memo No. Estt/04/2021/6095-6204 (Annexure P-20) and substituted office order bearing No.Estt./04/2021/6473-6583 dated 19.03.2021 (Annexure P-21) issued by respondent No.2, qua petitioner whose name has been recorded at S. No.10, as it suffers from the vices of mala fides, illegality, and is in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India;
4.For quashing of order dated 06.12.2021 bearing Memo No.01/2021/28303-12 (Annexure P-24), passed by respondent No.2, whereby representations dated 18.03.2021 and 12.05.2021 (Annexure P-23) submitted by the petitioner for promoting him to the post of Labour Inspector, has been rejected by way of non-speaking, cryptic, laconic order and in violation of principles of natural justice;
5.For quashing of order dated 21.12.2021, endorsed vide Memo No. Estt./01/2021/29557-85 dated 23.12.2021 (Annexure P-26) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the first ACP granted to the petitioner, under Haryana Civil Services (ACP) Rules, 2016 has been ordered to be withdrawn on the basis of wrong, illegal and unsustainable reasons.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the present writ petition, vide order dated 20.10.2023, the petitioner has been promoted as Labour Inspector w.e.f. 06.09.2021 retrospectively along with notional benefits. A copy of order dated 20.10.2023 passed by the Labour Commissioner, Haryana, handed over by learned counsel for the petitioner in Court today, is taken on record.
Learned counsel submits that although the petitioner had initially sought his promotion as Labour Inspector w.e.f. the date of his eligibility i.e. 12.01.2009 along with consequential benefits, yet he is satisfied with the promotion so accorded to him. However, the petitioner has a limited grievance with regard to the consequential benefits admissible to him in respect of his promotion w.e.f. 06.09.2011 including arrears of salary.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at this stage, the petitioner shall be satisfied if the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to him to submit a representation to the respondent(s) with regard to the aforesaid grievance with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the same in a time bound manner while keeping in mind the ratio of law laid down by this Court in the following judgments:-
(1)Ram Pal vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (3) RSJ 248 (DB).
(2)Sudesh Kumar vs. Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. And another , 2006 (3) SCT 262 (DB).
(3)Gurdial Singh vs. Ambala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. And another, 2011 (3) RSJ 233.
(4)Vijay Kumar Verma vs. State of Haryana and others, 2002 (3) RSJ 694 (DB).
(5)Jagjit Kumar Batra, vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2022 (3) SCT 348.
(6)Rameshwar vs. State of Haryana and Others, 2006 (1) RSJ 30 (DB).
Learned State counsel submits that he has no objection to the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard.
In view of the facts noted above, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondent(s) with regard to his aforesaid grievance, including his claim for all consequential benefits including arrears of salary admissible to him w.e.f. 06.09.2011, within a period of four weeks from today. In case the petitioner submits such representation within the stipulated period, the respondent(s) shall consider and decide the same by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of four months thereafter, keeping in view the judgments referred to hereinabove. The petitioner shall also be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, if so requested.