CWP No. 15244 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CWP No. 15244 of 2010 Date of decision: 19.07.2011 Randhir Singh ........ Petitioner Versus Haryana Power General Corporation Limited and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. J K Goel, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondents -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 02.08.2010 (P7) and also to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to grant the deemed date of promotion to the petitioner as Helper Grade I w.e.f. 05.09.1991 at par with that of Maha Singh-respondent No. 3 along with all consequential benefits and to step up his pay at par with Maha Singh as also CWP No. 15244 of 2010 2 to release all the benefits together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum within the stipulated period. The only ground for rejecting the claim of the present petitioner is that at the time, when he had appeared before the Screening Committee in 1990, he was involved in the case of getting bogus experience certificate in the Assistant Fitter Trade for taking ITI examination as a private candidate and for this lapse, a charge sheet had been issued. It is admitted that the said charge sheet was decided on 15.02.1993 and only a punishment of warning was given to the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner stood regularized vide memo dated 04.02.1992. Thereafter, he was even appointed as Helper Grade II vide order dated 10.02.1993 on seniority basis and subsequently, promoted as Helper Grade II vide order dated 19.02.2003. Thus, the said charge sheet cannot be taken against the petitioner as the same has been ignored while granting him regularization and further promotion in view of the fact the same was disposed of only with a warning. It is not disputed that some other persons junior to the petitioner as well as Maha Singh, Randhir Singh and Hawa Singh, junior to the petitioners were regularized vide order dated 25.03.2006 with effect from 05.09.1991. In these circumstances, there is no justification for the respondents to deny the same relief to the present petitioner which the respondents had granted to Maha Singh-respondent No. 3. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant the benefit to the present petitioner also in terms of the order dated 25.03.2006 placed on record as Annexure P3. CWP No. 15244 of 2010 3 Allowed in the above terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 19.07.2011 mohan