Experience gained by employee while working on Current Duty Charge to be treated as part of experience for promotion: Punjab and Haryana HC

Read Order- State of Punjab v. Anil Sharma and another 

LE Staff

Chandigarh, August 26, 2021:The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the experience gained by the respondent, Anil Sharma, during his tenure of Current Duty Charge as Conservator of Soils from September 16, 2018 is to be treated as a part of experience for promotion to the next higher post of Conservator of Soils.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice Karamjit Singh has also directed that the claim of the respondent is to be decided by the Government within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, by passing a speaking order.

Herein, the respondent was promoted as Divisional Soil Conservation Officer on September 16, 2015 and later on he was also handed over the additional charge of Conservator of Soils by an order dated May 24, 2018. He was promoted as Conservator of Soils on October 14, 2019 .

He was now seeking promotion to the post of Chief Conservator of Soils w.e.f. May 24, 2020. As per the Government Notification dated August 29, 2014 which was published on September 9, 2014 it was notified that only those Conservators of Soils who have an experience of working as such for a minimum period of two years would be eligible for promotion to the post of Chief Conservator of Soils. 

The main plea of the respondent had been that his experience from May 24, 2018 to October 14, 2019 when he was having additional charge of Conservator of Soils, should be taken into consideration, while calculating minimum two years experience required for his promotion to the post of Chief Conservator of Soils. However, the State contested this claim of the respondent.

The appellant state had filed the present appeal against an earlier order passed by the Single Judge whereby the claim of the respondent (petitioner therein)  was ordered to be decided within a period of one month.

“..it is manifest that the experience gained by an employee while working on Current Duty Charge is to be treated as a part of experience for promotion to the next higher post,” noted the Division Bench.

The Bench addressed the issue at hand and observed that that the Government Notification published on September 9, 2014 provides that the Chief Conservator of Soils is to be promoted from amongst Conservator of Soils, who have experience of working as such for a minimum period of 2 years. 

The Court opined that the said notification did not specify that the aforesaid experience for a minimum period of two years should be as Conservator of Soils on regular basis. The notification did not make any difference between the person working on a regular basis on substantive post and the person having additional charge of the said post. 

The Court affirmed the observation of the Single Judge that the respondent  (petitioner therein) has gained requisite experience while working on Current Duty Charge and he clearly fulfils the requirement of the Rules and therefore qualifies to be considered for promotion to the post of Chief Conservator of Soils.

The Bench also made it clear that that the posts of Conservators of Soils were lying vacant on May 24, 2018, when respondent was given additional charge of the said post. However, at that time, he was not eligible for promotion to the said post, not having requisite experience of working as Divisional Soil Conservator Officer for a minimum period of three years. 

The Court observed that the respondent gained the said minimum experience of three years as on September16, 2018 and he became eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Conservator of Soils on this date itself. 

“So, we are of the view that the experience gained by respondent No.1 during his tenure of Current Duty Charge as Conservator of Soils from 16.9.2018 is to be treated as a part of experience for promotion to the next higher post of Conservator of Soils. To this extent, we are in agreement with the direction given by the learned Single Judge,” added the Division Bench.