Rajinder Singh v. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 07 Apr 2008
- Bench
- MOHINDER PAL
Outcome
Disposed of
Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 409, 467, 471
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is working as a Junior -2- Civil Writ Petition No.9969 of 2007 (O & M).…
Judgment
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL.
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
2.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate, for the respondents. -.-
Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is working as a Junior -2- Civil Writ Petition No.9969 of 2007 (O & M). Technician (X-ray) with the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the P.G.I') seeks promotion to the post of Senior Technician (X-ray) from the date his juniors were promoted as such. A perusal of the pleadings of the parties reveal that petitioner's case for promotion as Senior Technician (X-ray) was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as `D.P.C') on April 08, 1993 along with other two junior Technicians (X-ray) i.e Ram Singh and Suresh Kumar. However, result of the petitioner was kept in a sealed cover because the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as `the C.B.I) was conducting an inquiry against him.
Thereafter, the C.B.I got registered a case against the petitioner under Sections 409/467/471 of the Indian Penal Code and under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereafter, another meeting of the D.P.C was held on May 15, 1997 for promotion of Senior Technicians (X-ray). However, petitioner's name was not proposed for consideration as earlier recommendations of the D.P.C held on April 08, 1993 were kept under sealed cover. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case on January 29, 2005 by the Court of Special Judge, Chandigarh. Thereafter, the P.G.I authorities revoked the suspension order of the petitioner and treated the period of suspension as the period spent on duty for all intents and purposes. As such, there was nothing against the petitioner to deny him the promotion to the post of Senior Technician (X-ray) from the date when juniors -3- Civil Writ Petition No.9969 of 2007 (O & M). to him were promoted.
Operative part
It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the D.P.C in its meeting held on April 08, 1993, had recommended his name for promotion as Senior Technician (X-ray) and rights of the petitioner stood crystalized. However, as the result of the D.P.C which was kept in a sealed cover was not opened after the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, therefore, he was not promoted. Learned counsel appearing for the P.G.I has admitted that name of the petitioner for promotion as Senior Technician (X- ray) was recommended by the D.P.C in its meeting held on April 08, 1993. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Senior Technician (X-ray) with all consequential benefits with effect from April 24, 1993, when Ram Singh and Suresh Kumar, Junior Technicians (X-ray), who were junior to the petitioner as such, were promoted. However, the petitioner will not be entitled to back wages. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE JUDGE April 07, 2008.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 409, 467, 471; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 07 Apr 2008. The bench was MOHINDER PAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.