IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 10125 of 2008. Decided on 4th January, 2011. _____________________________________________________ Man Singh. …Petitioner. -Versus- The Govt. of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that he has been ignored for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. Petitioner ranks at Sr. No. 44 in the seniority list. The persons at Sr. No. 43 and 45 to 52 have already been promoted to the post of Senior Assistant. However, case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant by the respondents due to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 vide memorandum dated 21.07.2001 (Annexure R-1). In case the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the charge-sheet has been issued, his case was required to be kept in a sealed cover. However, there is nothing on record to suggest, even remotely, that this procedure was 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. ever adopted by the respondents. However, in the interest of justice, the respondents are now directed to consider the case of the petitioner, in case he has been absolved/exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him vide memorandum dated 21.07.2001 (Annexure R-1), from the date his juniors have been promoted to the post of Senior Assistant, with all consequential benefits, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. 2. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge January 04, 2011. (bhupender)