Punjab And Haryana High Court Imposed Rs10K Cost On District Judge For Using 'Pick And Choose Policy' To Deny Benefit To Clerk

The judge stated that the counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 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 Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case Munish Gautam v. State of Punjab and others observed and has imposed the cost for an amount 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.

The bench headed by Justice Mahabir Sigh Sindhu in the case observed and has stated that, '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 No 2 and respondent No 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 i.e., the District and Session Judge, Patiala is found to be wholly unreasonable; hence liable to be invalidated.