CWP No.74 of 2009 : 1 : In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 07.01.2010 Balbir Singh Yadav ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.JV Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rameshwar Malik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. -- PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): The petitioner was serving as Executive Engineer in the irrigation department of the state of Haryana. While in service, a charge-sheet was issued to him on 14.02.2004 followed by another charge-sheet dated 25.02.2004. Both these charge-sheets were issued immediately before his retirement on 29.02.2004. In so far as the first charge-sheet is concerned, the charges were dropped on 24.12.2004. The second charge-sheet was enquired into and on completion of the enquiry, charges in the second charge sheet against the petitioner also came to be dropped on 02.06.2009. Though the petitioner was paid the pension and some retiral benefits, however, all the retiral benefits have not been paid. The petitioner has accordingly filed this CWP No.74 of 2009 : 2 : petition claiming gratuity and other unpaid retiral benefits. The relief claimed in the writ petition is also for his consideration for promotion from the date persons junior to him were promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. It is stated that respondent Nos.3 to 5 were promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer vide orders dated 05.02.2004/09.02.2004 even when the petitioner was in service ignoring his seniority and the claim for such promotion. The respondents in their reply have admitted the issuance of charge-sheets and culmination of the disciplinary proceedings and dropping of the charges as averred in the writ petition. In regard to the payment of unpaid retiral benefits, it is stated that the government has already recommended to the Accountant General vide letter dated 13.06.2009 for payment of DCRG to the petitioner. Mr.Malik submits that the amount in respect of DCRG has been released in favour of the petitioner on 15.07.2009 and the other unpaid retiral benefits will also be released in favour of the petitioner. As far the question of entitlement of the petitioner for promotion is concerned, it is stated that the petitioner was considered for promotion for the post of Superintending Engineer but he was not found fit for the post due to pending investigation by the Vigilance Department. It is admitted case of the parties that on 05.02.2004/09.02.2004 when the persons junior to the petitioner were promoted, no charge sheet in any disciplinary proceedings was served CWP No.74 of 2009 : 3 : upon the petitioner, nor any criminal case was registered against him. The first charge sheet came to be issued on 14.02.2004 and the second charge sheet later in time. The petitioner could not have been denied promotion merely on the contemplation of some departmental proceedings. Legal position in this regard is no more res integra in the case of Union of India etc. etc. Vs. K.V.Jankiraman etc. etc., AIR 1991 Supreme Court, 2010, wherein the following observations have been made:- “The conclusion No.1 should be read to mean that the promotion etc. cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against the employee. To deny the said benefit they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge- memo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee. Thus read there is no inconsistency in the two conclusions.” In view of the settled legal position, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (i) consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer with effect from the date persons junior to him were promoted and if on such consideration, the petitioner is found eligible and suitable, he shall be promoted accordingly; (ii) such promotion shall be without monetary benefits. However, the CWP No.74 of 2009 : 4 : salary of the petitioner shall be refixed by giving him notional benefit of such promotion; (iii) all pending retiral benefits of the petitioner shall be paid to the petitioner along with statutory interest where-ever payable. The entire exercise, in view of the above directions, shall be completed within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is made available to the respondents/competent authority. No costs. (PERMOD KOHLI) 07.01.2010 JUDGE BLS Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES/ NO CWP No.74 of 2009 : 5 :