Allahabad High Court
Gurdeep Singh vs State Of U.P.Thru The ... on 7 April, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19494
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2001433 of 2013
Petitioner :- Gurdeep Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru The Prin.Secy.Technical Education And Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Briendra Prasad Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
The petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"i) issue or pass a writ, direction and/or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents hereto to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and thereby issue a promotion order in favour of the petitioner promoting him on the post of Joint Director in accordance with the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee as held on 16.11.1993 and/or.
(ii) issue or pass a writ, direction and/or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to the writ petition to extend the financial benefits treating the petitioner to be promoted on the post of Joint Director with effect from 16.11.1993 and/or
iii) issue or pass a writ, direction and/or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to the writ petition to release the arrears of pay and allowances of the post of Joint Director."
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 24.10.1975 after being duly selected by the U.P. Public Service Commission and accordingly joined service as Head of Mechanical Engineering at Government Polytechnic, Kanpur. After rendering 29 years of service, the petitioner retired from the post of Additional Director, Technical Education, with effect from 13.04.2004.
It is further submitted that a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting was held on 16.11.1993 to consider the petitioner?s promotion to the post of Joint Director, Technical Education, in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000/-. The petitioner was fully eligible and qualified for the said post. However, due to a censure entry recorded against him vide order dated 09.12.1995 (Annexure No. 1), the sealed cover procedure was applied, and the recommendation of the DPC was kept in a sealed cover.
It is also submitted that the said censure entry was subsequently expunged vide order dated 15.06.2001 (Annexure No. 4). Learned counsel contends that after expunction of the adverse entry, the sealed cover should have been opened, and the petitioner ought to have been considered for promotion with effect from 16.11.1993.
It is further submitted that the petitioner sought information regarding his promotion under the RTI Act. In response, he was informed that the DPC convened on 19.04.2001 could not consider his case for promotion as the censure entry was still in existence at that time.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court towards towards Annexure No. 7, wherein it is stated that a similarly situated employee, Smt. Usha Birji, then Principal of Rajkiya Polytechnic, was promoted with effect from 23.11.1993. It is further submitted that the present writ petition was filed in 2013, and despite repeated opportunities, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Thus, the contents of the writ petition along with annexures are undisputed.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of written instructions, submitted that the petitioner?s case was duly considered by the DPC on 16.11.1993, but due to the censure entry, his case was placed under sealed cover. Subsequently, another DPC meeting was held on 19.04.2001, but since the censure entry had not been expunged by that time, his case could not be considered. The censure entry was expunged on 15.06.2001. However, learned Standing Counsel could not assign any reason as to why the petitioner?s case was not considered for promotion after expunction of the adverse entry despite repeated representations.
Perused the record.
A perusal of the record, it appears that the initial DPC meeting was held on 16.11.1993. Due to the censure entry, the petitioner?s case was placed in the sealed cover. The recommendations made by the DPC indicate that the petitioner was placed in the ?excellent? category. No reason has been assigned by the State for not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion after the expunction of the adverse entry. The minutes of DPC held on 16.11.1993 are extracted below:-
"?????? 16.11.1993 ?? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ?? ?? "???? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ?????????????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ??????, ????????? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ??? ??????? ????????? ????????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ????????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?????????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ??????, ????????? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ????"
The Supreme Court in the case of "R.K. Singh v. State of U.P., 1991 Supp (2) SCC 126", has held that once the adverse entries awarded to the appellant were expunged, the appellant is entitled for selection grade from the date on which he was eligible for grant of selection grade. The relevant para of the judgment is extracted below:-
"2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that this appeal must succeed. There is no dispute that during the pendency of this appeal the appellant's representation against the adverse entries has been allowed and these entries have been expunged from his service record. Since the adverse entries were expunged the State Government by its order dated January 24, 1991 granted Selection Grade to the appellant with effect from the date he takes over charge. We fail to appreciate the view taken by the State Government. Once the adverse entries awarded to the appellant were expunged the appellant is entitled to Selection Grade with effect from January 1, 1986 the date on which he was eligible for grant of Selection Grade. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and modify the order of the State Government dated January 24, 1991 and direct that the appellant shall be treated in Selection Grade with effect from January 1, 1986 and he will be entitled to all other consequential benefits with effect from that date. As regards appellant's further promotion, he will be considered for promotion in accordance with Rules."
In this case also admittedly the adverse entry was expunged. Due to this adverse entry, the petitioner's case though was considered in the DPC held on 1993, however, was kept in sealed cover. In the recommendation of the DPC, the petitioner was placed under excellent category, however, he was not promoted on account of pending adverse censure entry. Now, when the adverse entry has been expunged, the petitioner is entitled for promotion from the date he became eligible for promotion.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner?s case for promotion to the post of Joint Director, Technical Education, with effect from the date he became eligible for promotion.
The respondents are further directed to pay the petitioner the arrears of salary and pension as per the decision taken in compliance with the observations made herein.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 7.4.2025
R.C.
