Allahabad High Court
Dinesh Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 3 January, 2024
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:440
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4672 of 2022
Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Gupta
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance U.P. Govt. Civil Secrett. Lucknow
Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Prasad Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
and
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9012 of 2023
Petitioner :- Dr. Dinesh Kumar Gupta
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance U.P. Lko.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Prasad Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. The reliefs sought in both these petitions are interconnected and these petitions are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Writ-A No.4672 of 2022 has been preferred with the following prayers:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to hold the DPC for promotion of the petitioner and promote him with effect from 30.09.2021 in the Pay Band-4 Rs.37400-67000 Grade Pay Rs.10000 (Level-14).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to after promotion provide all the incidental and consequential service benefits to the petitioner at par with his juniors."
3. Writ-A No.9012 of 2022 has been preferred with the following prayers:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to trace out or constitute the ACRs of the petitioner from the year of 2010-11 to 2019-20 as per recommendation of the reporting officer.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to conduct enquiry and take appropriate action against the person/authority who had not placed or constituted the ACRs of the petitioner.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to extend all the incidental and consequential benefits including increments, efficiency bar, revision of pay scale and revision of the pension as per rules.
(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay the admissible dues with interest at market rate."
4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was eligible to be considered for promotion with effect from 30.09.2021 in Pay Band-4 Rs.37400-67000, Grade Pay Rs.10000/- (Level-14). When candidature of the petitioner was not considered, he approached this Court by filing Writ-A No.4672 of 2022.
5. In the said petition counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of State mentioning therein that service record of the petitioner is not complete due to which his candidature has not been considered as prayed in the writ petition.
6. It is submitted that the petitioner has provided his service record to the Additional Secretary Finance (Services) on 01.09.2021 and when nothing has been done, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing Writ-A No.9012 of 2023 with the prayers, which have already been mentioned above.
7. It is further submitted that the respondents are under obligation to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion as per clause-3 of the Government Order dated 28.08.1993. In support of his submission learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 22.07.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.1596 of 2010; Mala Kumari vs. State of U.P. and others.
8. It is further submitted that at the time of Departmental Promotion Committee there was a censure entry awarded against the petitioner which was subsequently quashed by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 28.02.2023, against which the Special Appeal was preferred by the State which was also dismissed on 21.08.2023. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2023 and retired from service.
9. Learned Standing Counsel is unable to dispute the government order and the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner.
10. This Court after hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record of the case, government order dated 28.08.1993 and the judgement relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner, it is found that an employee cannot be made to suffer on account of non-communication of entries on the part of authorities. The timely recording of the annual entries and maintenance of the record is the responsibility of the administrative department and it is incumbent upon the administrative department to procure all the information and provide the same in the prescribed proforma to the Department Promotional Committee. The State Government has issued a Government Order dated 20.08.1993 while taking care of the situation where such an entry of an employee is not available then the said entries have to be reported as blank and evaluation of the employee is to be done on the basis of available entries and the blank entries/unavailable entries is to be assessed as average of the available entries. In view of this background, there was no occasion for the Departmental Promotion Committee not to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion in Pay Band-4 Rs.37400-67000 Grade Pay Rs.10000 (Level-14).
11. As far as the punishment of censure awarded against the petitioner has already been quashed by this Court and attained finality after dismissal of the special appeal preferred by the State. The only hindrance in considering the candidature of the petitioner for promotion is incomplete service record.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, both the petitions are allowed with the direction to the respondents to convene the Departmental Promotion Committee in accordance with Government Order dated 20.08.1993 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion in Pay Band-4 Rs.37400-67000 Grade Pay Rs.10000 (Level-14) on the basis of available record and if his candidature is recommended, he may be given the promotional benefit from the date of his other colleagues especially the juniors who have been given promotional benefits.
Order Date :- 3.1.2024
Renu/-
