JAI PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Jai Pal was appointed to the post of Helper in Haryana Roadways Depot through employment exchange on 11.2.1985. The petitioner was promoted to the next post of Assistant Fitter on 9.7.1987. According to the petitioner his service record was good and he had performed the duties to the satisfaction of all concerned. He was charge-sheeted for misbehaviour with the Head Mechanic. Charge-sheet was served on him on 3.6.1994 to which the petitioner gave a reply. The departmental enquiry remained pending and in the meanwhile 13 other Assistant Fitters were promoted to the post of Fitter on 28.7.1995. After the petitioner made representations, on 19.8.1997 punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect was imposed upon him. The petitioner challenged this punishment before the High Court in CWP No. 18281 of 1997. The writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion. Again the petitioner was not promoted when six other Assistant Fitters Junior to the petitioner were promoted on 6.6.1997. Still further apprehending that the petitioner would not be promoted again, he filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance or directions to the respondents to promote him with effect from 6.6.1997 with further prayer for quashing the order dated 6.6.1997 vide much other six persons junior to the petitioner were promoted as fitters. The petitioner also prayed for quashing of Annexure P/5 which is the order passed by the respondents on 8.2.1999, stating that the petitioner was not entitled to promotion to the post of Fitter as on 28.7.1995.

(2.) Upon notice the respondents filed a detailed reply. The case of the respondents has been precisely stated in paragraph No. 2 of the preliminary submissions, which reads as under :-

(3.) From the above narrated facts it is clear that the departmental proceedings were pending against the petitioner on 28.7.1995 and the order of punishment was passed only on 19.8.1997. The petitioner had pleaded guilty during the departmental enquiry. The petitioner had filed a civil writ petition No. 18281 of 1997 challenging the order of punishment dated 18.9.1997, Annexure P/10 to that petition, and further that he should be promoted to the rank of fitter with effect from the date his juniors were promoted. The Division Bench rejected the prayer of the petitioner for quashing Annexure P/10, as such the order of punishment dated 19.8.1997 has also attained finality. However, the Division Bench directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as fitter with effect from 28.7.1995 when his juniors were promoted.