And Another vs C.S.C.
Case Details
Cited in this judgment
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 3 SPLAD No. 408 of 2025 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 4 SPLAD No. 408 of 2025 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. October 14, 2025 Anand/- (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
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 3 SPLAD No. 408 of 2025 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 4 SPLAD No. 408 of 2025 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. October 14, 2025 Anand/- (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench