Punjab & Haryana High Court Imposes ₹10K Cost On District Judge For Using 'Pick & Choose Policy' To Deny Benefit To Clerk

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 on a District and Sessions judge for adopting a "pick and choose policy" in denying the benefit of 2nd Assured Career Progression (ACP) to a clerk posted in his Court.

Justice Mahabir Sigh Sindhu said, "There is an old saying 'You show me the man and I will show you the rule' which means that rule(s) change(s) 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 respondent Nos. 2 & 3 by denying the lawful benefit of second ACP to the petitioner while granting the benefit to other similarly situated employees. Thus, action of respondent No.3 (District & Sessions Judge, Patiala) is found to be wholly unreasonable; hence liable to be invalidated."

The plea was filed by one Munish Gautam who was appointed as Clerk in 2009 in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Mansa. Gautam was transferred from Mansa Sessions Division to Patiala Sessions Divisio issued by the High Court and accordingly, he joined Patiala Sessions Division, and he was put at the bottom of the seniority list of Clerks working in Sessions Division, Patiala.

The Punjab Government introduced a policy for granting of ACP Scheme to the employees, who remained without promotion in the same cadre, on completion of 4, 9, and 14 years of service.

Petitioner was granted the benefit of aforesaid policy by the District and Sessions Judge, Mansa in 2013 on completion of four years of service in the cadre of Clerk, but his claim for granting the benefit of 2nd ACP on completion of nine years was declined by the District & Sessions Judge, Patiala on the ground that service rendered by petitioner on transfer from one Sessions Division to another Sessions Division, stood forfeited.

After hearing the submissions and examining the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume 1 Part 1, the Court found that the petitioner was entitled to the scheme by counting his past service.

Justice Sindhu highlighted that it has come on record under RTI that relief sought by the petitioner has been granted to similarly situated employees the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala and the District and Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, respectively.

"Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 has failed to point out as to why petitioner has been meted out with discrimination when other similarly situated employees have been granted the benefits," the judge added.

In light of the above, the Court allowed the plea of the petitioner seeking the benefit of the scheme and imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 on the District judge and another.

Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. 

Ms. Neha Sonawane, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Amrit Paul, Advocate for respondent No. 2 & 3.

Title: Munish Gautam v. State of Punjab and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 300

Click here to read/download the order