IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.7972/2008 Decided on:2.6.2009 Kalyan Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioner was granted additional increment by way of proficiency step up vide letter dated 17.2.1991. The petitioner was also considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger in the pay scale of Rs. 3300-6200 and office orders promoting the petitioner were issued on 15.1.2001. However, the petitioner was not given any posting despite the order dated 15.1.2001. Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate has strenuously argued that his client is entitled to get proficiency step up on the basis of Annexure P-1 and his client was required to be posted as Deputy Ranger on the basis of letter dated 15.1.2001. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes. 2 Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the petitioner had already been granted one increment with effect from 1.1.1986 and his second proficiency step up/ increment was to be granted after the completion of 18 years in the year 1994. He then contended that a mistake had crept in while issuing Annexure P-1 whereby the petitioner had been granted proficiency step up. He further contended that at the time when the Departmental Promotion Committee met for considering the case of the petitioner, the disciplinary proceedings had already been initiated against the petitioner and the Inquiry Officer was appointed. He lastly contended that since the petitioner could not be considered during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee were kept in a sealed cover as per Annexure R-7 dated 7.9.2001. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The respondents have issued Annexure P-1 whereby the petitioner’s name figures at Sr. No. 56. He has been released one increment with effect from 1.1.1986. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has submitted that the name of the petitioner has been wrongly included in Annexure P-1. According to him at the time of issuance of letter dated 17.2.1991, the Department has over looked that the petitioner had already been granted one increment with effect from 1.1.1986. It is in these circumstances according to him, the petitioner was not released additional increment on the basis of Annexure P-1. Be that as it may, once the petitioner’s name has been included in Annexure P-1, a valuable right has accrued to him. In case the Department had come to a conclusion that his name has been wrongly included in Annexure P-1, 3 he was required to be heard. The respondents have taken unilateral decision not to implement Annexure P-1. The petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the year 2001. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for “negligence in performance in Government duty”. The Inquiry Officer was appointed on 14.10.1999. He submitted his inquiry report on 15.3.2002. The disciplinary authority had imposed stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect upon the petitioner as per Annexure R-2 dated 3.4.2002 filed with the supplementary affidavit. Since the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner, the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee were required to be kept in a sealed cover. The respondents issued office order dated 15.1.2001 promoting the petitioner. However, the fact of the matter is that no posting orders were issued after the issuance of letter dated 15.1.2001. The respondents realizing their mistake issued Annexure R-7 whereby the name of the petitioner appearing at Sr. No. 39 of the office memorandum dated 15.1.2001 was deleted due to vigilance case against him and the result was kept in a sealed cover. It is also borne out from Annexure R-1 filed with the supplementary affidavit that the petitioner has been acquitted in criminal case vide judgment dated 31.12.2007. In these circumstances the respondents were required to take further action in view of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others versus K.V. Jankiraman and others, (1991) 4 SCC 109 for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion. The petitioner has been imposed minor penalty by the disciplinary authority. He has been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge on 31.12.2007. It was necessary for the respondents to open the sealed cover and to 4 consider the case of the petitioner for promotion after taking into consideration the minor penalty imposed upon and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to open the sealed cover and to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger as per the ratio laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others versus K.V. Jankiraman and others, (1991) 4 SCC 109 with all consequential benefits. The respondents are further directed to implement Annexure P-1 within a period of four weeks from today and incase they intend to withdraw this letter in that eventuality reasonable opportunity of hearing be afforded to the petitioner. No costs. 2.6.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*