IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.NO.17866 of 2006 DATE OF ORDER: 4.2.2008 Satish Chhabra ....Petitioner(s) Versus District & Sessions Judge, Kaithal & Others .....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate. Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate for the private respondents. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. JASBIR SINGH,J (ORAL) By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to order dated 27.4.2006 Annexure P.15, vide which promotion to the next post was declined to him from the date when his juniors were promoted. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner was working as a Clerk. He was to be considered, along with others, for the post of an Assistant. As per record, major punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner on 2.2.1998 (P.1). His appeal was also dismissed. It means that when junior to him was promoted in the year 2001, he was suffering the major penalty. By taking note of that, he was ignored. On completion of punishment, he came to this Court by making the following prayer: “Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ, order or direction especially in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the respondent No.1 to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Assistant w.e.f the date his juniors have been promoted and to grant the culminating benefits thereto at the rate of 18% p.a or issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.” C.W.P.NO.17866 of 2006 #2# In Civil Writ Petition No.7181 of 2003, it was prayer of the petitioner that he be promoted from the date when juniors were promoted. During pendency of that writ petition, petitioner was promoted to the next higher post vide order dated 14.7.2003. The above said writ petition was disposed of by observing thus: “Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has already been promoted, vide order dated 14th July, 2003. Consequently, this writ petition has been rendered infructuous. The petitioner is at liberty to raise any other claim, if available to him, in accordance with law.” We feel that so far as claim of the petitioner with regard to promotion from the back date is concerned, that has become final on passing of order on 25.11.2003. If the petitioner was not satisfied with the promotion made from the back date, he should have agitated his right in that writ petition only. Liberty was granted to him vide order referred to above only to raise any other claim if available to him as per law, which obviously mean that he was not given liberty to claim promotion from the back date. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a representation claiming ante dated promotion. Same was rejected vide impugned order dated 27.4.2006 (P.15). In that order, it has clearly been stated that when effect of punishment came to an end, the petitioner was given the necessary benefit and thereafter no person junior to him was promoted. The persons junior to him, were promoted only at the time, when he was suffering a punishment. Order passed by this Court on 25.11.2003 was also considered and it was observed thus: “It is clear from the above that whatever claim was filed by the applicant before the Hon'ble High Court through the above civil writ petition, had been dismissed as infructuous. The petitioner was only allowed to raise “Any other claim”, which means claim which did not arise in that petition. It is clear from the aforesaid discussions that the applicant could only be promoted after 31.10.2002. None of the junior employees had superseded the applicant in the promotion after that date. It is also clear that the subject matter of the present representation had already been raised before the Hon'ble High Court and the same had been dismissed as infructuous. In these circumstances, the claim raised by the applicant through present representation is not maintainable. It has also been rightly pointed out by the office that this claim has been filed after a delay of two and half years. So, considering all the aforesaid circumstances, this representation filed by the applicant is rejected.” C.W.P.NO.17866 of 2006 #3# We feel that the order passed is perfectly justified. Furthermore, at the time of arguments, counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Rajaiah v. Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad and others, AIR 1996, SC 2199 to say that when the employee was undergoing punishment of stoppage of increments, he was not entitled to be considered for promotion during the said period. Nothing has been shown to the contrary. In view of the facts mentioned above, this writ petition stands dismissed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE February 04, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE