SETAI MUKHERJEE Vs. COAL INDIA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner was placed under suspension because of pendency of criminal case. The order of suspension was subsequently revoked. He was given ad hoc promotion in E-3 grade in 1986. However such promotion could not be regularised in absence of vigilance clearance which was withheld due to pendency of the said criminal case. In 1991 the writ petitioner retired from service. In 1996 he was exonerated from the charges by the Criminal Court. The judgment of the Criminal Court has been annexed to the writ petition . I find that there was an honourable acquittal on merit . The writ petitioner now claims back-wages during the period of suspension as also the promotional benefits both in E-3 Grade as also in E-4 and E-5 grade which he could have otherwise availed had there been no such criminal case pending against him.

(2.) Mr. Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on the Apex Court decision in the case of Sudha Shrivastava Vs. Comptroller and Auditor General of India reported in 1996(1) SCC 63 : [1996(l) SLR 293 (SC)] submits that since the writ petitioner was already given ad-hoc promotion in E-3 grade he is entitled to be regularise in such post with retrospective effect and he is also entitled to get the differences of the higher salary after the acquittal by the Criminal Court. Paragraph 11 of the said judgment is relevant herein and is quoted belows:

(3.) On the question of subsequent promotions to E-4 and E-5 grade I am not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. It is true that the writ petitioner could not be considered for further promotion because of the pendency of the criminal case. Promotion is not a matter of right. Since the acquittal came at a stage when the writ petitioner had already been superannuated, he was not considered for promotion. There is nothing before me which would show that the writ petitioner could have been recommended in E-4 and E-5 grades had there been no criminal case pending against him. Hence the contention of the writ petitioner to that extent is not tenable and the Apex Court judgment in the case of Sudha Shrivastava (supra) cannot be applied herein to the said extent. Hence I reject the contention of the writ petitioner on that score.