IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.613 of 2009 Date of decision: 10.02.2010 Rati Ram ....Petitioner versus Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and another. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Devender Punia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Siddharth Batra, Advocate, for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the order of reversion on the ground that during the time when the promotion was granted in September 2007, there was a currency of punishment, which was undergoing and the promotion ought not to have been granted to him. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that the policy fettering of person for consideration of a promotion during the currency of punishment was introduced only in October 2007 and therefore, he could not have been denied his promotion. His contention Civil Writ Petition No.613 of 2009 - 2 - further is that the promotion as a Library Assistant from the previously held post as Library Attendant was wholly on the basis of seniority where the consideration of the currency of punishment would be irrelevant. 2. There could not have been a matter of new policy in October 2007 that a person could not be promoted during the currency of punishment. It could at best only be a restatement of a proposition that has gained approbation in service jurisprudence that a person cannot be rewarded with promotion during the time he is undergoing a punishment for certain misconduct. The learned counsel refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu Versus Thiru K. S.Murugesan-1995(2) SLR 392, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a situation of denial of promotion to a person where the consideration for promotion was merit-cum-seniority. The Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that if an employee concerned was promoted during such period of continuation of punishment, it would amount to putting premium on misconduct. Citing this judgment, the learned counsel states that they were considering a case of merit-cum-seniority and for a promotion post on the principle of seniority alone, this judgment will not apply. It will apply, in my view, to all situations and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was merely considering the issue in a case where the criterion for promotion was merit-cum-seniority. It does not include such type of situation. In L. Rajaiah Versus Inspector General of Registration-(1996) 8 SCC 246 the issue of the effect of penalty of stoppage of increment had been considered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court Civil Writ Petition No.613 of 2009 - 3 - held that even though the penalty imposed on the employee was that of stoppage of increment and not that of withholding of promotion, currency of the former penalty did disentitle the employer to be considered for promotion. Union of India Versus B.Radhkrishna- (1997) 11 SCC 698, addressed a similar problem like what is noticed in this case. Promotion had been made initially during the currency of the punishment but by a subsequent order, the promotion was made effective only from the date on which the punishment ceased to be operative. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the post-dating of such punishment, citing the promotion originally granted as improper. 3. The promotion granted to the petitioner in September 2007 when there was a currency of punishment was, therefore, not justified. However, the counsel states that the punishment period was over with 31.03.2008 and the reversion effected subsequent to the date, was unjustified. I see merit in such a contention and the promotion which was granted in September 2007, shall be taken as having been made on 1st April 2008 for all purposes and any additional emoluments which were drawn during the period shall not be recovered from the petitioner, even as stated so in the impugned proceedings. The order reverting the petitioner, is quashed and the petitioner is entitled to be considered as having been promoted on 01.04.2008 with all attendant benefits. 4. Counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner after obtaining an order of stay has not been reporting for duty. It shall not be a matter of adjudication in this case and the respondent will have other Civil Writ Petition No.613 of 2009 - 3 - remedies for any independent action for alleged misconduct attributed against him. 5 The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 10.02.2010. sanjeev