Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... vs Gurdeep Singh on 14 October, 2025
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:63729-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 408 of 2025
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical Education Lko. And Another
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Gurdeep Singh
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Birendra Prasad Singh
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.
C.M.A. No.1 of 2025 (Application for Condonation of Delay)
1. Heard.
2. Having gone through the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application in filing the special appeal, cause shown for the delay in filing the special appeal is sufficient. The application is allowed and the delay in filing the special appeal is condoned.
Order on Appeal
3. This is an appeal by the State against the judgment and order dated 07.04.2025 passed in Writ-A No.2001433 of 2013.
4. The facts of the case in brief are that after being initially appointed on 24.10.1975 as Head of Department of Mechanical Engineering at Government Polytechnic, Kanpur, the respondent-petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Joint Director, Technical Education, Department of Government of U.P. in the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'DPC') held on 16.11.1993, but at that time as there were disciplinary proceedings pending against him, therefore, the recommendation of the DPC was kept in a sealed cover. Ultimately, the proceedings ended in an order of minor punishment, i.e. punishment of censure, on 09.12.1995. The respondent-petitioner represented against the said punishment, which was rejected on 10.08.2000 as being time barred. Thereafter, on 19.04.2001 when the DPC meeting was held again, the sealed cover in respect of the respondent-petitioner was opened and it was found that in the DPC meeting dated 16.11.1993 he was categorized as 'uttam' and was recommended for promotion, but in the interregnum he had already been visited with a punishment of censure, therefore, only for this reason he was not found fit for promotion. However, thereafter the State Government realized that the earlier order of rejection of representation dated 10.08.2000 was flawed for the reason punishment of censure was given to the respondent-petitioner under the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules of 1930, which did not contain any time limit for submitting a representation against the punishment of censure. Accordingly, the matter was reconsidered and ultimately the censure order was quashed, meaning thereby the said censure which was the basis for not finding the respondent-petitioner fit for promotion in the DPC held in 19.04.2001 after opening the sealed cover lost its efficacy with effect from the date when it was passed. The appellant should have extended the benefits consequential to quashing of the order of punishment by considering him for promotion afresh at least from the date juniors to him were considered and promoted, but this was not done. He was considered for such promotion subsequently and on being found fit was promoted as Junior Director and then as Additional Director but he was not considered for fresh promotion from the date of promotions of his juniors. Ultimately, the respondent-petitioner retired as Additional Director, Technical Education w.e.f. 13.04.2004.
5. The paper book contains a document dated 19.11.2001. This is a letter written by Deputy Secretary, Technical Education Department, Government of U.P. to the respondent-petitioner Shri Gurdeep Singh in the context of consideration of his claim for promotion to the post of Joint Director based on the DPC held in the year 1993. The said document refers to the representation of the respondent-petitoner dated 03.07.2001. By the said letter the respondent-petitioner was asked to appear for personal hearing with respect to the said subject matter on 20.11.2001. This document is evidence of the fact that even prior to his retirement on 13.04.2004 the respondent-petitioner had been diligently pursuing his claim for being considered for promotion to the post of Joint Director etc. consequent to quashing of the punishment order dated 16.11.1993. The respondent's counsel submitted that he had been making representations all along and it is only in 2013 the respondent-petitioner was informed that his claim had been rejected in the DPC held on 19.04.2001.
6. Against the aforesaid background the respondent-petitioner filed a writ petition bearing Writ-A No.2001433 of 2013 seeking consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Joint Director afresh. The Writ Court had allowed the writ petition. No doubt, there was some delay on the part of the respondent-petitioner in filing the writ petition, but then it is also a fact that the only reason for denying him promotion while opening the sealed cover on 19.04.2001 was punishment of censure which was subsequently quashed on 15.06.2001, i.e. merely two months thereafter. As a consequence of it, respondent-petitioner should have been considered for promotion from the date of promotion to his juniors but was not considered. Moreover, the Writ Court has now adjudicated the matter on merits, therefore, it would not be reasonable to dismiss the writ petition at the appellate stage on the ground of delay, especially when it remained pending since 2013. The respondent-petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Joint Director as stated above keeping in mind the expunction of the punishment of censure vide order dated 09.12.1995, which was not done. Therefore, keeping with the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and others Vs. Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 64, the equities can be balanced by providing that the respondent-petitioner would be considered for notional promotion to the post of Joint Director from the date juniors to him had been promoted with consequential benefits of revision of pay and consequential consideration for promotion to the next higher post, if any, etc., notionally. Based on the aforesaid exercise, his last pay drawn would be fixed and based on such revised/recalculated last pay drawn and such other parameters as may be required in law, the pension and post retiral dues of the respondent-petitioner would be recalculated and requisite orders would be passed in this regard accordingly. However, arrears of such pension etc. would be restricted to the period of three years prior to filing of Writ-A No.2001433 of 2013. It is informed that the writ petition was filed in September 2013, therefore, the arrears of pension etc. would be payable to the respondent-petitioner only from the relevant date in September 2010 and not any date prior to it.
7. The judgment of the writ court is modified accordingly. The special appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
October 14, 2025
Anand/-
