IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 7106 of 2008 Date of Decision: 30.11.2010 Bhagi Rath Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. and another Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner: Mr.S.R.Badhan, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner, as is so stated by Mr. S.R.Badhan, Advocate, does not intend to file any affidavit in compliance of order dated 20.9. 2010. 2. In the present petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (a) the impugned order Annexure ‘PO’ be ordered to be modified/amended to the extent of date of promotion and the applicant be ordered to be promoted since 1990; (b) the respondents be also directed to pay all arrears to the applicant w.e.f. 3.8.90 when operation of penalty ended; (c) arrears be also paid accordingly. (d) Seniority of the applicant be also ordered to be maintained from that date. Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 (e) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit under the circumstances be also granted.” 3. From the given facts, it cannot be disputed that petitioner was under the employment of the respondents. He was initially engaged as a Conductor with the respondents in the year 1970. Seniority list was also prepared in which his name figured. 4. It is not in dispute that petitioner was otherwise eligible for being promoted to the post of Inspector. It is the contention of the respondents that in the DPC held on 24.10.1985, petitioner’s name was considered, but due to certain penalties imposed in the disciplinary proceedings, the effect of which was that till 30.6.1990 he could not be promoted, others were promoted. It is also a matter of record that vide order dated 24.10.1985 (Annexure PB) in fact petitioner was promoted but was not allowed to join in view of these disciplinary proceedings. What transpired between the years 1985 and 1990 is not required to be gone into in these proceedings in view of the specific prayer made in this petition. 5. It is also a matter of record that vide office order dated 4.10.1990 (Annexure PO) petitioner was again given benefit of promotion and promoted as an Inspector. 6. The question which needs to be considered is as to whether benefit of the order of promotion could be given to the petitioner in terms of his prayer or not. 7. From the record, it is not clear as to whether qua the petitioner office order dated 24.10.1985 (Annexure PB) was withdrawn/modified or not. It is also a matter of record that between the period 3.7.1990 and 18.9.1997 petitioner was placed under suspension. 3 8. It appears that after 1990 benefit of promotion was not given to the petitioner for the reason that investigation in a criminal case was pending and also certain departmental proceedings/inquiries in relation to other acts of misconduct were also pending against him. 9. From the reply it is evident that subsequently cancellation report was filed by the police and in the disciplinary proceedings petitioner was exonerated on 21.10.1998. Thus, between the period 4.8.1990 and 4.10.1999 there was no legal impediment in the petitioner being accorded the benefit of promotion as an Inspector. 10. Consequently, present petition needs to be allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion w.e.f. 3.8.1990 in terms of his prayer. Consequential action be positively taken within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order. It is clarified that if amount of arrears, if any, are not disbursed within the aforesaid period then thereafter petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum. Writ petition is allowed, accordingly. 30th November, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (vs/C) Judge.