IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 223 Rajesh Kumar State of Punjab CORAM: HON Present : AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. grant of selection grade in the pay scale of Rs.10300 completion of 5 years service. He refers to Annexure P 10.07.2023, the order by which hi condition of passing the Punjabi type test for release of increments, which he duly cleared, vide Annexure P has been rejected, vide impugned order dated 13.05.2016, that there were adverse remarks, rather ACR, Annexure P ‘very good’ computer. He further submits that reference in the written statement on behalf of respondents No. with regard to the evaluation for grant of ACP IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rajesh Kumar Versus f Punjab and Others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Ranjivan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab. AN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) Learned counsel submits that claim of the petitioner was for grant of selection grade in the pay scale of Rs.10300 completion of 5 years service. He refers to Annexure P 10.07.2023, the order by which his services were regularized which had a condition of passing the Punjabi type test for release of increments, which he duly cleared, vide Annexure P-2, dated 14.11.2006, howev has been rejected, vide impugned order dated 13.05.2016, that there were adverse remarks, rather ACR, Annexure P ‘very good’, but for only a remark, he not having the knowledge of He further submits that reference in the written statement on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4, dated 07.07.2022, with regard to the evaluation for grant of ACP IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-29674-2018 (O & M) Date of decision: 15.05.2025 ....Petitioner ...Respondents BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Advocate, Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab. Learned counsel submits that claim of the petitioner was for grant of selection grade in the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+3600 on completion of 5 years service. He refers to Annexure P-1, dated s services were regularized which had a condition of passing the Punjabi type test for release of increments, which 2, dated 14.11.2006, however, his claim has been rejected, vide impugned order dated 13.05.2016, on the ground that there were adverse remarks, rather ACR, Annexure P-7, is graded as but for only a remark, he not having the knowledge of He further submits that reference in the written statement filed 1 to 4, dated 07.07.2022, to Annexure R-3 is with regard to the evaluation for grant of ACP and not for selection grade, PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.05.16 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CWP-29674-2018 -2- even if that is taken into consideration, still as per it as well requirement is of 50% of ACRs to be good, which the petitioner admittedly has. He prays his case be re-considered taking into consideration the aforesaid in a time bound manner. 2. The aforesaid facts having been brought out, during the course of hearing, learned State counsel, on instructions, states that the respondents would not be averse to have a relook at the matter and decide afresh, taking note of the aforesaid submissions, within a period of 4 months, uninfluenced by the order impugned in the present case, which this Court has no reason to believe the authorities would not address in a just, fair and reasonable manner. 3. The aforesaid satisfies the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The matter stands disposed of accordingly and if the petitioner is found entitled, grant the benefit forthwith. Needless to say, if the orders are adverse to her interest, the same may be passed after granting opportunity of hearing to her and shall contain reasons, whereupon she shall be free to seek legal redress thereupon. 15.05.2025 (AMAN CHAUDHARY) parveen kumar JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.05.16 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.