HC raps Sessions Judge for ‘pick-and-choose’ policy, orders Rs 10,000 costs

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rapped Patiala’s then District and Sessions Judge and another respondent for “pick-and-choose policy”. The admonition came as Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu set aside the judge’s order against a court employee with Rs 10,000 cost after describing his action as wholly unreasonable and liable to be invalidated.

Justice Sindhu ruled that the amount was to be paid to the employee by the Sessions Judge and the other respondent within three months.

“There is an old saying ‘You show me the man and I will show you the rule’ which means that rules change depending on how influential or powerful the person is likely to be affected. It appears ex-facie to be a classic case of pick-and-choose policy adopted by a respondent and the Sessions Judge by denying the lawful benefit of second ACP to the petitioner, while granting the benefit to other similarly situated employees,” the court asserted.

The direction is significant as it is unusual for the high court to set aside a Sessions Judge’s order with costs to be borne by him and another respondent. The amount might appear nominal at the first glance, but imposition of costs is expected to serve as a crucial deterrent against such orders.

The matter was placed before Justice Sindhu after Munish Gautam sought the quashing impugned order dated January 9, 2020 , passed by the then Sessions Judge, whereby his claim for the benefit of second assured career progression (ACP) scheme was declined. The respondents’ stand was that petitioner’s past service could not be considered for seniority due to his transfer from Mansa to Patiala Sessions Division.

Justice Sindhu asserted the respondents’ reply made it evident that the provision relied upon to deny the benefit was inserted through a notification dated December 22, 2015. But the petitioner had joined Patiala Sessions Division on October 17, 2014. It clearly indicated that the rule was introduced after the petitioner’s appointment in Patiala Sessions Division. As such, the petitioner was entitled to second ACP by counting his past service, as the rule could not be applied retrospectively.

Justice Sindhu added RTI information revealed that the relief sought by the petitioner had already been granted to similarly situated employees by Patiala and Fatehgarh Sahib District and Sessions Judges.

“Although counsel for respondents tried to justify their stand by contending that if a wrong has been committed earlier, it cannot be set as a precedent for all times to come and a wrong cannot be allowed to perpetuate. However, the petitioner’s claim for grant of second ACP grade is lawful and there is absolutely no reason as to why benefit of his past service rendered in Sessions Division, Mansa, be not counted for the purpose,” Justice Sindhu added.