Jagan Nath Mandal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 185 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. Rule.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for disposal.

2. The petitioner was aggrieved by his non-consideration for promotion as Naib/Subedar w.e.f. April, 1998 on setting aside his adverse ACRs from 1985. The petitioner sought a mandamus also for directions to the respondents to forthwith review his case of promotion w.e.f. April, 1998 against the then existing vacancy with consequential benefits.

3. The respondents, on their own, after filing of this present petition granted benefits of seniority and promotion from April, 1998. Thus the only question remained was of the monetary benefits which would accrue to the petitioner there from. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the adverse ACR against the petitioner was only set aside and thereafter the respondents have taken expeditious steps in pursuance thereof and since the petitioner did not work in the said rank the petitioner should not be granted the monetary benefits.

4. It is not disputed that in view of the decision of the revisional authority the wrong done to the petitioner has been rectified. If the petitioner was not working in that particular rank at the relevant period time it was only as a consequence of a decision taken by the respondents endorsing an adverse ACR which has been subsequently set aside.

5. I am thus of the considered view that the petitioner should not be penalised for no fault of his. The petitioner shall also be entitled to consequential monetary benefits which flow from his promotion to the rank w.e.f. 15.2.1998 as that is the relevant date taken by the respondents in view of the fact that batch mates of the petitioner were promoted from that date. The amounts be so remitted to the petitioner within a period of 3 months from today.

6. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions leaving the parties to bear their own costs.