IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RA No.164 of 2008 and CM No.23107 of 2008 in CWP No.11505 of 2007 Date of decision : 20-3-2009 Ashwani Kumar ....Petitioner VERSUS Postgraduate Institute of Medical, Education and Research, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner. Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate, for the applicant-respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of review application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC filed by the petitioner to clarify that petitioner is required to be considered for promotion w.e.f. 1-3-1992 and not from 24-4-1993 when his juniors were promoted. This order shall also dispose of CM No.23107 of 2008 filed by respondent – Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research so as to clarify that adverse remarks in the year 1990-91 and 1991-92 were actually conveyed to the petitioner but this Court has proceeded on the assumption that such remarks were not communicated and, therefore, the order requires to be clarified. RA No.164 of 2008 and CM No.23107 of 2008 in CWP No.11505 of 2007 -2- Keeping in view the assertion of the respondents that adverse remarks for the year 1990-91 and 1991-92 were in fact conveyed to the petitioner and the stand of the petitioner that he is required to be considered for promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, we deem it appropriate to substitute the operative part of the order with the following para:- "Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation (Annexure P-19) submitted by the petitioner against the adverse remarks conveyed to him in the year 1988-89. The respondents shall consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion after taking into consideration his entire service record and from the date his immediate juniors were promoted. In case, representation against the adverese remarks so submitted is to be accepted, and that petitioner is found entitled to promotion, he shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits but not the back wages." With the said substitution, the said application is disposed of. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (MOHINDER PAL) 20-3-2009 JUDGE manju