JAMMU, Jan 5: In a significant decision, Division Bench of State High Court comprising Chief Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed and Justice Sanjeev Kumar has dismissed the appeal of the State against the judgment of Single Judge which had held retired veterinarians, who had completed 20 years of cumulative gazetted service on the date of passing of Government Order No.3-ASH of 2010 dated January 1, 2010, entitled to benefit of 3rd time bound promotion.
The State through Commi-ssioner Secretary, Animal and Sheep Husbandry Department and also Commissioner Secretary, Finance Department assailed the judgment of Single Judge dated February 19, 2016 primarily on the ground that Government Order No.3-ASH of 2010 dated January 1, 2010 by virtue of which the 3rd time bound promotion was allowed, applied prospectively and only to serving veterinarians who completed 20 years of cumulative gazetted service on or before the date of passing of the order.
After hearing Advocate P S Butt for the respondents and Deputy AG Raman Sharma for the State, the Division Bench observed, “the expression used in the Government order is— eligible veterinarians who have rendered 20 years of cumulative service. The other expression of importance which is used is— at par with Assistant Surgeons of Health Department”.
“The third aspect which also assumes importance is that the Government Order No.3-ASH of 2010 was issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department as such rejected the contention of State that only serving veterinarians are entitled to benefit of 3rd time bound promotion”, the DB observed, adding “contemporaneous understanding of the Government order was that the expression eligible included not only serving doctors but those who had retired on the date of which the Government order was issued”.
The DB further said, “the Government Order No-3ASH of 2010 fortified the stand taken by the writ petitioners by adding the expression—at par with the Assistant Surgeons of the Health Department”, adding “the Finance Department could not have taken any objection because the Government order was issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department as recorded in the order itself”.
With these observations, the DB dismissed the appeal of the State.