C.W.P. No.18829 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.18829 of 2005 DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 28, 2009 Jitender Kumar Bansal .....PETITIONER Versus Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Panchkula and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.K.S.Malik, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who is working as Assistant Executive Engineer, has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 28.10.2005 (Annexure P1) whereby respondents No.3 to 6 have been promoted to the posts of Executive Engineers (Electrical) on the ground that those respondents were junior to the petitioner and they have been illegally promoted by ignoring the claim of the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner has been illegally ignored for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Electrical) only on the basis of the order dated 23.1.2004 (Annexure P2) whereby the date of C.W.P. No.18829 of 2005 -2- promotion of the petitioner to the rank of Assistant Executive Engineer was changed from 23.11.1993 to 19.11.1997. Undisputedly, vide order dated 8.11.1993 (Annexure P3) the petitioner along with several other Assistant Engineers, including respondents No.3 to 6, as mentioned in Annexure `A' of the said order, were promoted as Assistant Executive Engineers against the existing regular vacancies. Subsequently, vide order dated 8.2.1994, the promotion order qua the petitioner was withdrawn on the ground that he was promoted due to omission on the part of the official who could not bring out the fact relating to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing CWP No.4613 of 1994 wherein vide order dated 11.4.1994 status quo as on that date was ordered to continue until further order. Finally, the said petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.5.1995 in view of the fact that in the aforesaid departmental proceedings the enquiry was complete and the report was submitted, with a direction to the respondents to take the decision on the enquiry report within two months and till then status quo was ordered to be maintained. Concededly, in the said enquiry, vide order dated 2.5.1996, the petitioner was found guilty and he was punished with stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. It is conceded position that the said order of punishment became final as no appeal against the said order was filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent authority passed the impugned order dated 23.1.2004 (Annexure P2), whereby the petitioner was granted deemed date of promotion w.e.f. 31.10.1997 when the effect of punishment of stoppage of one increment inflicted upon him was over. C.W.P. No.18829 of 2005 -3- The petitioner has challenged the above-said order on the ground that in CWP No.4613 of 1994 filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 8.2.1994, the order of status-quo was passed in his favour, and as the order dated 8.2.1994 (Annexure P4), whereby the petitioner was reverted to the post of Assistant Engineer, was not yet implemented, the petitioner continued to work as Assistant Executive Engineer, therefore, impugned order giving him the deemed date of promotion from 19.11.1997 is illegal and arbitrary. The respondent-Nigam in its reply stated that since the effect of minor punishment inflicted vide order dated 2.5.1996 continued up to 31.10.1997, the petitioner was promoted only thereafter. Since the official respondents had further promoted respondents No.3 to 6 to the posts of Executive Engineers, there is no illegality in the impugned order. The only question to be considered in this case is whether respondents No.3 to 6 were considered to be junior to the petitioner for the purpose of their promotion on the posts of Executive Engineers. Undisputedly, the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 6 were initially promoted from the posts of Assistant Engineers to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineers. Only qua the petitioner the promotion order was withdrawn because concededly a departmental proceeding was pending against the petitioner which could not be brought to the notice of the promotional authority. The earlier writ petition (CWP 4613 of 1994) filed by the petitioner challenging the said order was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 16.5.1995 only with the direction to the respondents to take the decision on the enquiry report within two months and till then status quo was ordered to be maintained. Concededly, in the said enquiry, the C.W.P. No.18829 of 2005 -4- petitioner was found guilty and was punished with stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. In view of the pendency of the charge- sheet and the punishment imposed, the petitioner was not found eligible for promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer from the date respondents No.3 to 6 were promoted. When the effect of the said punishment was over, the petitioner became eligible for promotion and from the said date he was given promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer. Therefore, in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer, the petitioner became junior to respondents No.3 to 6, though in the previous cadre, i.e. Assistant Engineer, he was senior to them. Counsel for the petitioner could not point out any Rules or Regulations which provide that even after imposition of the punishment in Departmental enquiry, the petitioner was entitled for promotion from the date of his initial promotion till the time the effect of the punishment was over. Merely because under the order of status quo the petitioner had worked as Assistant Executive Engineer up to the date of passing the impugned order, he cannot be deemed to have acquired a right to be considered as Assistant Executive Engineer from the date of his initial promotion because the order of reversion was not set aside in the said petition and the same was disposed of only with the direction that till the decision on the charge-sheet, the petitioner will continue on the said post. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Instructions dated 18.11.1971, which were subsequently modified/supplemented by Instructions dated 19.7.1973. These Instructions do not support the claim of the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that in view of his overall record, the petitioner was C.W.P. No.18829 of 2005 -5- entitled for promotion even during the disciplinary proceedings under the Rules. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders dated 23.1.2004 (Annexure P2) and 28.10.2005 (Annexure P-1), respectively. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. April 28, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE