The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Jeet Kumar Sohra vs Ld. District and Sessions Judge (HQ) consisting of Justice Rekha Palli opined that merely because of orders passed at a much later stage, the petitioner’s eligibility on the relevant date cannot be ignored.
Facts
The petitioner, an employee of the respondent belonging to the SC category, approached the Court seeking a writ of mandamus/certiorari to set aside the order passed by the Respondent and direct it to promote the Petitioner as per order passed by this Hon’ble Court via which the petitioner was promoted to the upgraded post, but one Shri Krishan Panwar, also a SC category candidate who had joined the service as LDC (Lower Division Clerk) on the same date as the petitioner, i.e., 08.11.1993, was granted upgradation and consequential promotion as UDC (Upper Division Clerk).
Procedural History
Aggrieved with the delayed upgradation, the petitioner submitted a representation but received no response thereto, and therefore, approached this Court via a petition which came to be disposed of with liberty to him to make a fresh representation. But that was also rejected via an order, and he was informed that even though, Shri Krishan Panwar was, despite award of a censure on 30.11.2005, granted promotion as UDC, the petitioner could be granted promotion only after expiry of various penalties imposed on him between 07.12.2005 and 24.12.2013. Hence the present petition.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: It was contended that he neither had any adverse entry in his service record, nor any departmental proceedings had been initiated against him and since the first penalty was imposed on him only on 07.12.2005, he could not be denied promotion at par with Shri Krishan Panwar, who had joined the respondents’ service as an LDC on the same date as him and was awarded a censure on 30.11.2005.
Respondent: It was contended that the petitioner was marred in the disciplinary proceedings for various charges of misconduct and negligence, on the date of his consideration for upgradation. So, the respondents could not be faulted for not granting promotion to the petitioner till the effect of the penalty orders ceased to operate on 30.06.2016.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that merely because orders were passed at a much later stage, the respondents could not have ignored the petitioner’s eligibility on the relevant date, which continues to be 02.01.2001. It opined once it is undisputed that, as on 02.01.2001, no disciplinary proceeding whatsoever had been initiated against the petitioner, and there was no adverse entry in his service record on the said date, the respondents could not have denied him promotion from 02.01.2001, on which date he was admittedly eligible.
Judgment
The Bench directed the respondents to grant the promotion to the petitioner to the upgraded post of UDC w.e.f. 02.01.2001, i.e., at par with Sh. Krishan Panwar. The petitioner would also be entitled to all consequential benefits as has been granted to other similarly placed employees. However, it was also made clear that this order will not preclude the respondents from taking into consideration subsequent penalties imposed on the petitioner for any purpose, including any upgradation, for which he becomes eligible after 08.08.2002.
Case: Shri Jeet Kumar Sohra vs Ld. District and Sessions Judge (HQ)
Citation: W.P.(C) 3118/2019
Bench: Justice Rekha Palli
Decided on: 13th September 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
