IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 78 of 2011 (S/B) Surendra Kumar Agnihotri … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others. … Respondents Mr. I.P. Gairola, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. CSC, for the respondents no. 1 & 2. Date of order : 5.7.2011 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) It is not disputed, as no counter affidavit has been filed, that while considering the case of promotion of the petitioner, recourse to sealed envelope was taken. In other words, case of promotion of the petitioner was considered, but inasmuch as a criminal case against him was pending for having allegedly amassed disproportionate asset, the decision on his case of promotion was kept in a sealed cover. At the same time, it is also not being disputed that the said case of disproportionate asset against the petitioner has since been decided in his favour. That being the situation, the sealed envelope is required to be opened. 2. We, accordingly, dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents to open the sealed envelope and give to the petitioner the benefit of the decision contained in the sealed envelope in terms of the policy of the Government. In the event, sealed envelope is not available or the same has been misplaced, the department is directed to initiate fresh 2 steps for consideration of the case of promotion of the petitioner. Such steps must be taken as soon as possible and should be completed, under no circumstances, beyond a period of six months from today. In the event, in course of such fresh exercise, it transpires that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted, he must be accorded promotion keeping in view that for the said promotion, the petitioner was entitled from the date his juniors were promoted, and all benefits of such promotion must be made available to the petitioner in terms of the decision of the Government in that regard. In course of reconsideration of the case of the petitioner, the merit of the petitioner must be adjudged on the basis of the materials, which the Departmental Promotion Committee could have considered at the time when they had taken recourse to sealed cover method. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 5.7.2011 5.7.2011 Prabodh