KANWAR LAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion with effect from the date respondent No. 3, junior to the petitioner was promoted.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the Gurgaon Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") on 1.4.1964. He was promoted as Junior Accountant on 23.6.1972. A seniority list of Junior Accountants was circulated on 20.2.1980 (Annexure P-6). In this seniority list (Annexure P-6), name of the petitioner figures at Sr. No. 4 and that of respondent No. 3 at Sr. No. 7. The petitioner claims promotion under the Haryana State Co-operative Bank Staff Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1975 which had been made applicable to the Bank since 1975. The petitioner claims that his service record is good enough for him to be promoted on the post of Senior Accountant in his own turn. The petitioner has also improved his qualifications by doing a diploma in Cooperative Banking. A certificate to this effect was given to the petitioner on 17.4.1979. At the time when the case of the petitioner was to be considered for promotion to the post of Senior Accountant, he was falsely implicated in a case under Sections 467/471 IPC. He was convicted along with one Shabir Ahmad under Sections 467/471 read with Section 109 of the IPC by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon judgment dated 19.3.1981/ 23.3.1981. The petitioner filed Crl. Appeal No. 8 of 1982 against the aforesaid judgment. The appeal was allowed and the conviction was set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon on 8.10.1982. The Appellate Court in Paragraph 6 of the judgment has observed as follows : "6. As regards Kanwar Lai, there is no expert report against him. Indeed, there is no evidence against him at all that he passed or signed the L.P.Os. He has been convicted on the basis of statements of oral witnesses, to be referred to presently, which have been interpreted to mean that his duty it was to compare the face of the drawer of loan with his photograph."

(3.) In the final paragraph of the judgment, the Appellate Court has observed as follows: "18. Thus, the appeal of Kanwar Lai is accepted in toto, while that of Shabir Ahmad is accepted partly to the extent of modification in sentence as indicated above." Relying on the aforesaid acquittal, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Bank claiming promotion from the date his junior i.e. respondent No. 3 had been promoted. The claim of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Senior Accountant was considered by their Bank along with Himmat Rai and Zafar Ahmed. In the resolution passed by the Bank on 28.1.1981, the claim of the petitioner and Himmat Rai has been rejected as their service record was said to be poor and criminal case was pending against the petitioner. Zafar Ahmed was promoted to the post of Senior Accountant. The representations filed by the petitioner were accepted and the adverse remarks for the year 1980-81 were expunged. It was also resolved that overall assessment of the petitioner shall be considered as good, Subsequently, the petitioner was permitted to cross the Efficiency Bar by order dated 6.3.1991 w.e.f. 1.6.1988 rising his pay from Rs. 2,300/- to Rs. 2,360/- in the scale of Rs. 1600-50-2300-EB-2360. From this, it becomes apparent that the petitioner had reached the maximum of the scale on 1.6.1988. Ultimately, accepting the representation of the petitioner, he has been promoted by order dated 20.2.1291 with all consequential benefits. The claim of the petitioner is now restricted to notional promotion with effect from 28.1.1981 till 20.2.1991 when he was actually promoted, as the petitioner has already superannuated.