Civil Writ Petition No. 17438 of 2010. Case: Gurmej Singh Vs Guru Nanak Dev University. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Case Number | Civil Writ Petition No. 17438 of 2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: H.P.S. Rahi, Advocate and For Respondents: Amrit Paul, Advocate and A.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. |
| Judges | Sabina, J. |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | July 15, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
Sabina, J.
1. Petitioners have filed this petition seeking a direction to respondent No. 1 to grant them higher scale as per their promotion orders (Annexures P-3 to P-7).
2. Case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they were working as technical staff with respondent No. 1-university. Petitioners had not earned any promotion in their career whereas the other employees working in the university, had earned promotion as well as benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. In pursuance to the decision dated 16.9.2005 (Annexure P-2), petitioners were promoted as a personal measure in March-April, 2007 vide Annexures P-3 to P-7. Audit Department raised an objection that since the petitioners had already been granted next higher scale after 4, 9 and 14 years of service under the Assured Career Progression Scheme in lieu of stagnation in promotion avenues, they could not be granted promotion to the next higher scale as a personal measure. Hence, the present petition by the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners had been granted promotion in view of the decision taken by the syndicate Annexure P-2 to mitigate their stagnation. Hence, the audit objection raised by the Audit Department was liable to be set aside.
4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the university had granted promotion to the petitioners as a personal measure without there being any available vacancies. Therefore, the Audit Department had rightly raised the objection.
5. Learned counsel for the university, on the other hand, has supported the case of the petitioners.
6. In the present case, petitioners are the employees of the university and were working as technical staff. Since there was no promotional avenue in their cadre, petitioners were granted benefits under Assured Career Progression Scheme on their completing 4, 9 and 14 years of service in the same cadre. Admittedly, no vacancies were available for promotion to any higher post so far as the petitioners are concerned. Vide Annexures P-3 to P-7, petitioners were promoted as a personal measure.
7. Note given in Annexure P-3...
To continue reading
Request your trial