IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No.1442 of 2005 Date of Decision:- 01.12.2006 Sohan Lal ....Petitioner through Mr.S.K.Sharma, Advocate vs. Sh.J.P.Sharma & anr. ....Respondents through Mr.K.K.Gupta, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** SURYA KANT, J. The petitioner filed C.W.P.No.14623 of 2002 which was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated January 27, 2004 with a direction to consider the petitioner's case for promotion afresh and in case he is found suitable, to grant him benefits from the date his juniors were promoted. Alleging non-compliance of the above-stated order, this contempt petition has been filed. In response to the show cause notice, respondent No.2 has filed his reply/affidavit. It is not in dispute that in compliance to the order passed by this Court, the claim of the petitioner for promotion has been reconsidered and he has been promoted from the due date and consequential arrears of pay have also been released. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that the petitioner is also entitled to be granted selection grade with effect from 13.8.2001 i.e. the date when his junior was granted the said service benefit. In fact, selection grade was granted to the petitioner vide an order dated 19.4.2006 but has now been withdrawn vide an order dated 18/20-11- 2006 on the ground that on the relevant date i.e. 13.8.2001, the C.O.C.P. No.1442 of 2005 -2- petitioner was involved in a vigilance case, therefore, he was not eligible for the grant of selection grade from the said date. The petitioner, however, has been granted selection grade with effect from 1.1.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to an order dated 12.7.2001 passed by the then Sr. Regional Manager whereby the above-stated vigilance case was disposed of by imposing minor penalty of 'censure' only. It is argued that the misconduct attributed to the petitioner having been treated of trivial nature, on the basis of which he has been awarded minor punishment of 'censure' only, the same would not come in his way for the grant of selection grade with effect from 13.8.2001 at par with his junior (Nand Lal). Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the above-stated claim is beyond the scope of the directions contained in the order dated January 27, 2004 passed by this Court (Annexure P-1) which is the subject matter of these contempt proceedings. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the fact that the grant of 'selection grade' is somewhat similar and akin to the service benefit of 'promotion' and this Court vide order Annexure P-1 had issued directions to consider the claim of the petitioner for 'promotion' and to grant the same if he is found suitable from the date when his juniors were granted but at the same time keeping in view the fact that the aforesaid order passed by this Court has been substantially complied with, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the competent authority regarding his claim for grant of 'selection grade' with effect from 13.8.2001 and if any such representation is made by him, the competent authority shall consider the same objectively and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from its receipt. Rule discharged. December 01, 2006 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE