IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION No. 11935 OF 2001 Between: S.Palanivelu ..... Petitioner AND Union of India, Rep. By the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal Division, South Central Railway, Guntakal and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Head Booking Clerk with effect from January, 1994 on par with his juniors and to pay arrears of fixation from 1.6.2000 and consequently to set aside the dismissal order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in OA No.1750 of 1999 dated 7.9.2000, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner was appointed as Commercial Clerk in South Central Railway on 1.12.1973 and promoted as Senior Booking Clerk and while working as such, punishment of withholding of increment for a period of six months was imposed, which had to be in force till 31.5.1995. By proceedings dated 3.1.1994 and 20.6.1994, juniors to the petitioner were promoted and the petitioner was promoted on ad hoc basis on 18.5.1995 and on regular basis from 7.10.1995. It is case of the petitioner that fixation of his pay in the promotional grade with effect from 7.10.1995 is arbitrary when he was promoted along with his junior. It is stated that when the representations dated 25.11.1995, 18.4.1997 and 20.1.1999 did not bear fruit, he filed OA No. 1750 of 1999 seeking a direction to the respondents to revise his date of promotion as 1.6.1994 or the date on which his juniors were promoted and to re-fix his pay on par with that of his juniors. The Tribunal, by the order impugned in this writ petition, dismissed the O.A. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Railways. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Serial Circular No. 16 of 1993 dated 17.2.1993 issued by the respondents and emphasizing on Guideline No. 3.1 thereof, contended that there is, however, no objection to promote an employee who is not under suspension and the proceedings already initiated are for the imposition of only a minor penalty. He contends that injustice has been done to the petitioner in not promoting him when his juniors i.e. the employees at serial Nos. 59 to 61 in the Gradation list were promoted by order dated 20.6.1994, even though the punishment period had expired on 31.5.1994. It is true that the petitioner was inflicted with the minor penalty of withholding of increment for a period of six months i.e. from 1.12.1993 to 31.5.1994. It is also not in dispute that after completion of the punishment, the petitioner was also promoted on ad hoc basis on 18.5.1995 and on regular basis on 7.10.1995. It is the case of the respondent – Railways that the contention of the petitioner that he too ought to have been considered for promotion along with his juniors on 25.5.1994/20.6.1994 cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the proposal for the promotion of his junior was initiated during April, 1994 and was finalized before 31.5.1994, by which time, the petitioner was undergoing punishment. Adverting to the Serial Circular No.16 of 1993, sought to be relied upon by the petitioner cannot be applied to the facts of the preset case, inasmuch the guidelines are applicable in respect of those employees against whom disciplinary/court proceedings are initiated and are pending. It is not the case of the petitioner that the proceedings were pending against him as on the date when his juniors were promoted. It has to reiterated that in culmination of the proceedings, punishment of withholding of increment for six months was imposed. Hence, the guidelines do not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. At the cost of repetition, it has to be observed that the petitioner was promoted on regular basis on 7.10.1995 and his seniority was protected vis-à-vis his juniors by order dated 7.10.1995, as rightly observed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is a settled proposition of law that an employee cannot claim the promotion as of Right and he has only a right to be considered when it arises in accordance with the relevant rules. This position of law has been dealt with by the Apex Court in a decision Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited and Others. Etc., Etc., Vs. Pravat Kiran Mohanty and Others ([1]) has held that right to promotion is not a fundamental right and an employee has only right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the relevant rules. Having gone through the entire material available on record, we are of the considered view that the Central Administrative Tribunal has rightly dismissed the O.A. and, as such, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Hence, no interference is called for. Consequently, the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ____________________ Justice G.V.Seethapathy September 28, 2010 MAS [1] (1991) 2 SCC 295