DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

High Court orders promotion of employee as chief engineer, admonishes PSPCL for adamant attitude

The court admonishes the Corporation for relying on a restrictive and misplaced interpretation of a 2022 office memorandum to limit promotion benefits, insisting that administrative instructions cannot override judicial rulings
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
featured-img featured-img
The court dismissed the Corporation's claim of ambiguity in the 2019 instructions as a basis for denying promotion, stressing that the law is unequivocal. Tribune file
Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Advertisement

Chandigarh, August 27

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the promotion of an employee as chief engineer under the 4 per cent quota for disabled employees, sharply criticising respondent-Punjab State Power Corporation Limited for its adamant attitude.

Advertisement

Justice Aman Chaudhary reprimanded the Corporation for its refusal to implement the petitioner's promotion despite clear legal provisions and a positive recommendation from the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) dated July 29, 2023.

Taking up the petition filed by the employee through senior advocate Pawan Kumar with counsel Vidushi Kumar and Parul Dhingra, the court dismissed the Corporation's claim of ambiguity in the 2019 instructions as a basis for denying promotion, stressing that the law is unequivocal: an employee's disability at the time of consideration for promotion is the only relevant factor, irrespective of when the disability was acquired.

Advertisement

The court further admonished the Corporation for relying on a restrictive and misplaced interpretation of a 2022 office memorandum to limit the promotion benefits, insisting that administrative instructions cannot override judicial rulings.

Justice Chaudhary pointed out the inconsistency in the Corporation's actions, noting that similarly situated employees had already been promoted, exposing the alleged ambiguity as a mere pretext to delay the petitioner's promotion.

The court highlighted the Corporation's repeated and implausible excuses, including the invocation of the Model Code of Conduct, as deliberate attempts to stall the promotion process.

“At one stage, even the shelter of model code of conduct, being in operation was taken, which though cannot come in the way of implementation of court orders and as such it was stated by the Advocate-General that officiating charge will be given to him. But instead of honouring the same, additional charge was granted on a post in the office of the CMD, depicting the adamant attitude,” Justice Chaudhary asserted.

The Bench observed the corporations continued to stick to its guns nevertheless. More than evident undercurrent was to stall or delay the promotion, even though the reasons provided for the delay were implausible.

The court directed the immediate promotion of the petitioner from the same date as other employees promoted by the DPC, ensuring that all consequential benefits are granted. Given the petitioner's impending retirement, the court ordered the promotion to be effected within a month.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Classifieds tlbr_img2 Videos tlbr_img3 Premium tlbr_img4 E-Paper tlbr_img5 Shorts