Punjab Rules to Remain Applicable to Chandigarh Employees, High Court

Chandigarh Employees: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has adjudicated that Punjab Civil Services Rules will remain governing the service terms of employees working under the Chandigarh Administration unless the Centre Government specifically alters or amends them. In its ruling, the court specified that service rules governing Punjab workers also apply to Chandigarh, except if there are explicit amendments by the Centre.

The division bench consisting of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma held that amendments to the Punjab Civil Services Rules would not be applicable in Chandigarut automatically unless the Central Government adopted them. Unless the Centre decides not to adopt these amendments, it will have to bring forth its own rules or policies regarding the service conditions of Chandigarh employees.

This order has important connotations, substantiating that rules of Punjab shall hold the force of law within Chandigarh until the Centre decides in some purposeful act to modify them. The court issued the judgement against a case on the advancement of a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) to the cadre of Superintendent of Police (SP) in the Chandigarh Police. The petitioner had challenged the denial of his promotion, citing the long-vacant post of Deputy Commandant, deemed equivalent to Additional SP, which he argued had been considered abolished due to prolonged non-occupation.

Refuting this argument, the High Court drew reliance on the precedents of the Central Administrative Tribunal’s Ernakulam Bench. It asserted that the doctrine of post abolition can be applied to direct recruitment but certainly not to promotion. The court reiterated that a post is not necessarily abolished simply because it is lying vacant for a long period of time, particularly where promotions are being regulated under a prevailing policy.

Directive for Departmental Promotion Committee

The tribunal’s order was upheld by the court, which directed the Chandigarh Administration to hold a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to determine officers’ suitability for promotion under the Own Rank Promotion policy. The committee was required to be constituted within two weeks and to give its decision within one week thereafter.

The petitioner was keen to get the promotion to the rank of Deputy Commandant in the Indian Reserve Battalion (IRB), equivalent to the rank of Additional SP. The IRB had been created by the Chandigarh Administration with Centre’s approval. The Home Ministry had given approval for one rank of Commandant, equal to SP rank, and three ranks of Deputy Commandant, equal to the rank of Additional SP. The vacancies were usually taken by Punjab, Haryana, and Delhi officers on deputation.

The petitioner had made a representation before the Adviser to the UT Administrator seeking elevation to the rank of Deputy Commandant, being regarded as analogous to a non-IPS SP. But his request was declined by the Chandigarh Administration on the ground of absence of vacancies for non-IPS SPs in Chandigarh Police and awaiting implementation of Punjab’s DSP-to-SP promotion policy.

The service conditions of Chandigarh employees shall continue to be regulated by the Punjab Civil Services Rules unless the Central Government makes its own rules or enacts amendments through Punjab.

A post cannot be construed as abolished merely on account of long-standing vacancy, especially when promotions are to be assessed under a prevailing policy.

Employees can be recommended for promotion with retrospective effect, subject to the requirement that they have to go through the prescribed selection process. This judgment reconfirms the principle of law directing service conditions at Chandigarh and brings illumination to the promotional policies governing its government servants.