PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (HEADQUARTERS)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the first round of litigation, respondent was directed vide order of 24th January, 2018 to pass a speaking order on petitioner's Representation seeking promotion with effect from 13th June, 2008 when similarly placed employees as petitioner's were promoted. Vide impugned order of 16th February, 2018 (Annexure P-10) petitioner's Representation has been rejected while referring to OM dated 28th April, 2014 of the Ministry of DoPT, Government of India and by observing that petitioner could not be promoted from back date as he was serving penalty which ceased to have effect on 30 th June, 2010 and so petitioner was promoted with effect from 1st July, 2010.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner assails the impugned order (Annexure P-10) on the ground that petitioner was eligible to be promoted in June 2008 and at that time, petitioner was exonerated and was not serving any penalty and lateron, on 2nd January, 2009 Disciplinary Authority had inflicted minor penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. It is pointed out that the penalty was inflicted because petitioner had not given any reminder to seek permission as sought vide applications of 17th August, 1998 and 9th September 1998. The precise submission of petitioner's counsel is that entitlement of petitioner to promotion accrued in June, 2008 and though the petitioner may not be entitled to the actual salary from the said date but deserves to be notionally promoted from June, 2008 as he stood exonerated on the relevant date.

(3.) On the contrary, learned counsel for respondents maintains that promotion has been rightly granted to petitioner with effect from 1st July, 2010 as earlier thereto, petitioner was serving a penalty.