High Court not following own judgment on judicial officer’s promotion: Bench

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, February 15

In an out-of-the-ordinary order, Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan today held that the Punjab and Haryana High Court was itself on administrative side not following a Division Bench judgment in a case related to a judicial officer’s promotion.

Justice Sangwan also ruled that the respondents committed wilful disobedience of the judgment dated September 13, 2018, directing the reinstatement after holding the judicial officer entitled to seniority, continuance in service, right to promotion and all other consequential benefits, except arrears of salary.

Denying a right

The applicant/petitioner, who was directed to be granted benefits as per the judgment dated September 13, 2018, has not been given the right of promotion with effect from the date when his juniors were promoted, though he is due to retire in April. —Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan

Justice Sangwan also asserted that the High Court’s Recruitment and Promotion Committee (Superior Judicial Services) tried to “override the direction as per the judgment”.

Calling for a fresh compliance affidavit of the HC Registrar-General, Justice Sangwan directed the officer and the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Department of Law and Justice, to remain present in case of failure to file an affidavit.

Justice Sangwan was hearing a plea by Ishwar Dutt against then Registrar-General Harnam Singh Thakur and another respondent. The Bench was told that the petitioner’s petition challenging the termination of his services was allowed by a Division Bench on September 13, 2018. An SLP by the HC stood dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated April 29, 2019.

His counsel argued that the applicant/petitioner joined back. But dispute remained with regard to “right of promotion”. His contempt petition was disposed of following an undertaking by the respondent that all benefits of “seniority, continuation in service, right to promotion and all other consequential benefits”, would be given within four weeks. Seeking the contempt plea’s revival, his counsel submitted that “due promotion” had not been granted.

The respondent’s counsel, on the other hand, submitted to the committee decided to call for an option from the petitioner whether he was willing to appear in the suitability test in accordance with the new criteria. The petitioner did not succeed in the test, it was added.

Justice Sangwan asserted there was no occasion for the committee to call for fresh option from the petitioner on administrative side, once a specific direction had been given to grant promotion. The decision was not in compliance of the judgment and the committee tried to override the direction. It should have granted promotion with a rider subject to final outcome of the decision in an SLP.