IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPT No.9747 of 2008 Date of Decision: October 21, 2011 Kamlu Ram ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. __________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner had been serving as Senior Assistant in Education Department, represented by respondents No. 1 and 2, in the year 1997, when some posts of Superintendent Grade-II were sought to be filled. Petitioner, at that time, was facing departmental action for major penalty. His juniors were promoted. Later on, departmental proceedings concluded and he was visited with minor penalty of stoppage of two increments, without cumulative effect. This penalty was imposed in the year 2002 and within a few months of the imposition of the Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É penalty, petitioner was promoted as Superintendent Grade- II against a vacancy, which was then available. Petitioner made a representation for promoting him with retrospective effect, particularly from the date, when the persons juniors to him, had been promoted in the year 1997. When the petitioner did not hear anything from the respondents, he filed an Original Application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, in the year 2003. On the abolition of that Tribunal in the year 2008, said Original Application has come to this Court and registered as the present Civil Writ Petition (T). 3. Plea raised by the respondents is that since the petitioner had been facing inquiry, which resulted in his indictment and also penalty, though not major, he cannot be given the benefit of promotion with retrospective effect. 4. It is petitioner’s own case that he had been visited with the penalty of stoppage of two increments, without cumulative effect as a result of departmental proceedings, which were going on against him in the year 1997, when some persons juniors to him were promoted. Though it is not made out from the record whether sealed cover procedure was followed in the case of petitioner or not, yet looking to the fact that departmental proceedings resulted in the indictment of the petitioner and also penalty, he would not have been entitled to be promoted, even if sealed cover procedure was followed and he was selected. É3É For the foregoing reasons, present petition is dismissed. October 21, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.