IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3312/95 S.K. Parashar vs. The Secretary, Cooperative Department & Ors. Date of order : 18/11/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sanjay Joshi for the petitioner. Shri Hemant Gupta, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** This writ petition was filed way back on 13.7.1995 claiming three reliefs namely; (i) quashing and setting aside the charge sheet and consequential disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, (ii) directing the respondents to finalise the pension matter of the petitioner and to promptly release the gratuity and other retirement benefits to the petitioner and (iii) directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar as against the vacancies filled up on the basis of recommendations of DPC held in March and May, 1992. Shri Hemant Gupta, learned Additional Government Counsel has submitted that the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner has been dropped by order of His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan vide order dated 26.7.1997. It is contended by him that petitioner has been granted full retiral benefits vide PPO No.132417 (R) dated 16.12.1997 and GPO No.148338 (R) and all arrears including the amount of gratuity etc. have been paid. Shri Sanjay Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has however submitted that the case of the petitioner was not at all considered in the DPC held on 31.3.1992, 8.5.1992 and 23.5.1992 against the vacancies of various years and many of the Assistant Registrars, who are even though junior to the petitioner, were promoted ignoring his claim. The writ petition therefore should be allowed to that extent. Consideration of the arguments aforesaid would show that the writ petition, in so far as first two prayers are concerned, has become infructuous except for the claim of interest. However, the petition only survives with regard to the grievance of the petitioner for non consideration of his case for promotion. Once the respondents have dropped the enquiry against the petitioner and that was done because the enquiry officer in his report did not find the charges proved against the petitioner, they are duty obliged to consider his case for promotion with reference to the quantum of the order by which their juniors were promoted. Petitioner in para 15 of the writ petitioner has named S/Shri N.S. More, Mahesh Chand Jain, Om Prakash Sharma, Shobha Kaushik, P.C. Gupta, Surendra Singh, B.S. Khedia, Ajayveer Singh Chouhan, Dharampal Singh, Ashok Kumar Joshi, B.D. Sharma, Bharat Bhushan Sharma, Yogendra Singh Yadav, K.K. Gupta and Amar Singh Verma, who according to him, were all his juniors and yet were promoted on the post of Deputy Registrar. The respondents in para 15 of the reply have stated that since a departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules was under contemplation against the petitioner, therefore, his case for promotion was rightly not considered and such action was totally legal and justified. In substance, therefore, the respondents do not deny the fact that the case of the petitioner for promotion was not considered. In the normal course, a government servant facing disciplinary enquiry cannot be denied right to consideration for promotion. His case is considered by the DPC but recommendations of the DPC qua him are placed in sealed cover. According to the stand of the petitioner, even the sealed cover procedure was not adopted in the case of the petitioner which in my view, was a grave illegality. The petitioner has certainly made out a case for issue of a writ of mandamus on that count because many of his juniors in the meantime were promoted as Deputy Registrar and superseded him. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner for promotion with reference to the years of vacancies for which meeting of the DPC was convened on 31.3.1992, 8.5.1992 and 23.5.1992 and if the petitioner is adjudged and recommended suitable for promotion, grant him benefit of promotion with effect from the date his immediate junior was granted such benefits. The petitioner shall be entitled to consequential benefits together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The petitioner is also entitled interest @ 6% for the period of delay in making payment of his retiral dues including arrears of pension, gratuity etc. Compliance of the judgement be made within a period of three months from the date of production of copy of this order before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/