IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.: 2713/2008 Decided on:24.3.2009 Chandu Ram. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the petitioner : Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The petitioner had sought directions to the respondents to open the sealed cover and to promote him as Deputy Ranger with effect from 7.2.1992. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner’s case for promotion was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee held in February, 1992 but case FIR No. 10/1982 dated 23.7.1982 under sections 379, 420, 467, 568, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was pending before the Special Judge (Forest), Shimla. It is in these circumstances that the report of the Departmental Promotion Committee was kept under sealed cover. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 The Court had directed the learned Senior Additional Advocate General to seek instructions about the outcome of this case. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has produced before the Court copy of judgment dated 17.6.2000 rendered by the Special Judge (Forest), Shimla. The operative portion of judgment dated 17.6.2000 reads thus: “As a result of my above discussion in point number-1, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and all the accused except Avtar Singh proclaimed offender are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The personal and surety bonds furnished for their appearance in the court are discharged.” It is thus evident that the petitioner has been acquitted by the trail court. Accordingly, the sealed cover was to be opened as per the definitive 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 and the petitioner was required to be promoted in case found suitable by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The fact that the appeal is pending against the judgment rendered by the Special Judge (Forest), Shimla in this Court has no bearing on the promotion of the petitioner to the post in question after his acquittal by the trial court. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to open the sealed cover and in case the petitioner has been found suitable by the Departmental Promotion Committee, he will be promoted from the due date with all the consequential benefits. The entire exercise be undertaken by the respondents within four weeks from today. The peremptory direction has been issued to promote the petitioner taking into consideration that he has superannuated during the pendency of this petition and his promotion will have also bearing on his retiral benefits as 3 well. It is clarified that after the promotion the petitioner will be entitled to revised retiral benefits. The amount due to the petitioner will be paid with interest @ 9% from the due date till its realization. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 24.3.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*