IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 4946 of 2008 (OA No. 353 of 1998 ). Judgement reserved on: 2.3.2010 Date of decision: 8.3.2010. Ajanta Sewak …..Petitioner. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation …. Respondents. & ors. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. O.P.Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge.. The petitioner in the petition has prayed a direction to the respondents to promote him from the date from which his juniors were promoted to the post of Fitter with all consequential benefits with further direction to the respondents to maintain the seniority of the petitioner before the promotion of his juniors. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was regularized / appointed as WSM (Mechanical) on 19.2.1984 by Regional Manager, H.R.T.C., Nahan vide Annexure A-1. The petitioner was transferred from Nahan to Hamirpur on 12.3.1993. The petitioner was charge- sheeted under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 24.6.1994 and he was awarded a formal punishment of censure vide office order dated 20.3.1997 Annexure A-3. In the seniority list of helpers, the petitioner has been shown at Serial No. 121. The persons junior to Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… him up to serial No. 155 were promoted as Fitters on 14.2.1996. The petitioner had represented to the respondents for promotion to the post of Fitter. According to respondent No.2, the petitioner was not promoted due to disciplinary proceedings and punishment order. It was stated by respondent No. 2 that the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post as Fitter would be considered in the next DPC. The respondent No. 3 intimated the petitioner on 12.12.1997 that the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Fitter was considered but he was not found fit/ eligible. The respondent No. 3 has not given any reasons for not promoting the petitioner. The punishment of censure is not a penalty for promotion and the petitioner has been denied promotion to the post of fitter only on the ground that he was censured. In these circumstances, the petition was filed. 3. The respondents have contested the petition and filed the reply. It was stated that the petitioner was charge-sheeted under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 vide memo No.808 dated 24.6.1994. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of censure on the petitioner vide memo No. 8187 dated 20.3.1997. It has been submitted that while considering for promotion the over-all work and conduct of petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee but he was found unfit and therefore, he was not promoted to the post of fitter. It has been denied that promotion was denied solely on the ground that penalty of censure was imposed on petitioner. …3… 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The respondents have taken the stand that over-all service record of the petitioner was considered which was found not satisfactory. It has been denied that the petitioner was denied promotion only on the ground that penalty of censure was imposed. In other words, the respondents have taken the stand that the reason for not promoting the petitioner is his over-all work and conduct and not the penalty of censure. There is nothing on record to show that in what manner the over-all work and conduct of the petitioner was not good and for that reason he was not found fit for promotion. No such material has been placed on record. In para-6 (iii) of the reply the respondents have rather pleaded that in case the work and conduct is not found satisfactory then the penalty of censure is also to be considered for adjudging the fitness to the post of higher post. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the penalty of censure has definitely influenced the DPC. 5. The petitioner has pleaded that in the seniority list of helper, his name appears at serial number 121 and persons junior to him up to serial number 155 were promoted as fitter on 14.2.1996. The seniority position of the petitioner and the juniors to him and their promotion has not been denied in the reply. The respondents in their reply have not stated that comparative work and conduct of persons juniors to petitioner was better than the petitioner. In absence of such assessment how the persons juniors to petitioner were promoted as fitters, that has not been explained by the respondents. Chapter 16.3 of the Handbook of Personnel Matter Vol. I (2nd Edition) Government …4… of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Personnel provides that imposition of minor penalty of censure does not by itself stand against the consideration of such person for promotion. There is nothing on record that work and conduct of the persons juniors to the petitioner was better or they were better in merit in comparison to petitioner. Therefore, respondents have erred in not promoting the petitioner as fitter w.e.f. 14.2.1996. In these circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case for consideration of his case for promotion by respondents w.e.f. 14.2.1996 when persons juniors to petitioner were promoted as fitters with all consequential benefits, such as seniority, pay fixation and arrears. 6. No other point was urged. 7. The result of above discussion, the petition is allowed and in light of above discussion, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as fitter w.e.f. 14.2.1996 when persons juniors to him were promoted as fitters with all consequential benefits such as seniority, pay fixation and arrears. The needful be done within a period of two months from today, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on arrears payable to the petitioner on account of his promotion. No costs. March 8, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.