IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16995 of 1999 Between: V. Udaya Bhaskar … Petitioner AND The Managing Director, APCO, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy Counsel for the respondent : None This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16995 of 1999 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for promoting him to the post of Salesman/Assistant Manager from the post of Assistant Salesman with effect from 09.08.1991 with all attendant benefits. The petitioner was appointed as ‘B’ Grade Salesman of Hyderabad region on 19.04.1978. He was transferred to Vijayawada region in the year 1981 and to Karimnagar, which is a part of Hyderabad region. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not promoted when his juniors were considered and promoted by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the year 1991 and that he was promoted only in the year 1994 with effect from 25.05.1994. When the petitioner filed WP.No.11998 of 1998, the same was disposed of by this Court by order dated 13.11.1998 permitting him to make a representation to the respondent and directed the respondent to consider the same. In pursuance of the said order, the impugned memo has been issued. At the hearing, there is no representation for the respondent – Corporation. No counter affidavit is available on record. A perusal of the impugned memo shows that the petitioner’s juniors were promoted in the year 1991, whereas he was promoted only on 25.05.1994. The only reason given therefor is that when the Departmental Promotion Committee considered the candidature of the eligible employees, the petitioner was under suspension and that as per the procedure in vogue, an employee under suspension will not be considered and accordingly the petitioner’s case was not considered for promotion. It is further stated that subsequently in the year 1994 the Departmental Promotion Committee met for consideration of the names of the candidates eligible for promotion and accordingly the petitioner was promoted. In my considered view, the reasons given in the impugned memo are wholly lopsided. The respondent has not cited any service regulation under which an employee under suspension is liable to forego his claim for promotion from the time when his juniors were promoted, after revocation of suspension. Unless under the service regulations an employee, who suffered a punishment, is disentitled to claim promotion for a specified period, mere non-consideration of the case of the employee for promotion on the ground of his being under suspension at the time of consideration, would not deny him the benefit of retrospective promotion on par with his juniors after the suspension is revoked and the employee has not suffered any punishment. The impugned memo was passed in the year 1999 and it is not the case of the respondent that after the revocation of suspension of the petitioner in the year 1991, he suffered any punishment during the interregnum period between 1991 and 1994 when the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Manager. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have been promoted with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion with effect from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted as Assistant Manager. It is needless to state that on such promotion, the petitioner shall be entitled to all the benefits of such promotion. The respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated about, WPMP.No.21113 of 1999 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 24.12.2008 ES