IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1610 of 2004 (S/S) Raj Kumar Verma S/o Sri Triloki Singh Verma R/o 46, Ghoshi Gali, Dehradun. Petitioner ...…………. [ Versus District Judge, Dehradun. ...…………. Respondent Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Ravi Babulkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30.09.2004, passed by the District Judge, Dehradun (copy Annexure –4 to the writ petition). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed by the parties. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was a Clerk in District Court, Dehradun, where he joined his duties on 17.12.1973. He was working as Ahlmad with Munsif, Dehradun in February 1980-81. It is alleged that the Presiding Officer for some reason got annoyed with the 2 petitioner and made complaint against him to the District Judge, Dehradun. The District Judge, allegedly without giving opportunity of being properly heard to the petitioner, awarded adverse entry in the character roll of the petitioner on 16.12.1980. A representation against said entry was made to the Allahabad High Court on the administrative side. However, the petitioner continued to be victimized by the District Judge, even after transfer of the then Presiding Officer of the court of Munsif, Dehradun. Later, the petitioner was promoted from the pay scale of Rs. 200 – 320 to the grade of Suits Clerk (pay scale Rs. 330 – 385). Again, it appears that there had been some problem with the working of the petitioner and he was reverted back by the then District Judge on the original pay scale of Rs. 200 –320. The petitioner made a representation, but the same was also rejected, by the District Judge. It is stated in Para 17 of the writ petition that when the petitioner was attached with Special Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, further adverse orders were passed against him affecting his service. Thereafter, the petitioner was attached in the court of Munsif III, Dehradun. Again, it appears that there was some problem with his working, and the petitioner was ultimately charge sheeted. An enquiry was held against him, and finally the petitioner was removed from the service, in the year 1984. Meanwhile, another departmental enquiry was also ordered against the petitioner, in connection with loss of record of some 12 files, including one relating to civil revision No. 81 of 1980; Shambhoo Lal Vs. Chatar Singh. The appeal filed by the petitioner, on administrative side of the High Court, was dismissed on 17.04.1987, and order of removal from service was affirmed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition, 3 which was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court on the ground on latches. A special appeal appears to have been filed against the order of learned Single Judge before the Allahabad High Court which was also dismissed, and finally a Special Leave to Appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court, on the basis of which Civil Appeal No. 4197 of 2000 was admitted by the Apex court, and the orders passed by the Allahabad High Court were set aside, and matter was remanded to the Division Bench of this Court to decide the lis with regard to the quantum of punishment. The Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 25.02.2004, passed in Special Appeal No. 12 of 2003, set aside the order of removal from service and in its stead awarded punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and a censure entry for negligence. While, disposing of said appeal the Division Bench of this court observed that the appellant (present petitioner) shall not be entitled to any back wages as conceded by him, he shall be back on duty in the pay scale from which he was removed. Lastly, it was observed by the Division Bench of this Court that the petitioner shall be entitled to the continuity of service for the post retiral dues and other benefits. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that expression ‘other benefits’ includes all the promotions to which the petitioner could have been entitled during the period when he was kept out of the job. I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, as the Division Bench of this Court has clearly indicated that the petitioner shall be back on duty in the pay scale from which he was removed. His continuity in service is to be treated for 4 post retiral dues and other benefits. On behalf of the petitioner it is further submitted that expression ‘other benefits’ would be of no meaning if the petitioner was not given the seniority and the and the promotion. This Court of the view that the petitioner is entitled to seniority only in the grade in which he was working and he was reinstated. It is settled principle of law that the petitioner cannot be given seniority in the grade where he has yet not promoted. 5) In the circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the District Judge, Dehradun on 30.09.2004, and the report dated 10.09.2004 of the Additional District Judge / First Fast Track Court, Dehradun, which was considered in the matter by the District Judge before the impugned order is passed. 6) For the reasons as discussed above, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed with the observation that the petitioner’s case for his future increments and promotions may be considered in view of his seniority in grade he is reinstated, subject to his performance in service as per the rules. However, he cannot be said to be entitled to the notional promotion during the period he remained out of job, particularly, in view of the fact that he is not exonerated of the charge even from the judicial side. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) [ Dt. May 01, 2008. H.Negi 5