IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 11715 of 2011
Date of Decision: July 8, 2011
Union of India
...Petitioner
Verus
Arun Kumar and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
Present: Mr. S.S. Sandhu, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
M.M. KUMAR, J.
1. The Union of India has filed the instant petition under Ar-
ticle 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 27.8.2010
passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tri-
bunal (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’).
2. The Tribunal has reached the conclusion that the appli-
cant-respondent was entitled to be considered for promotion for the
vacancy of the year 1999-2000 with persons junior to him were con-
sidered and promoted on the post of Junior Administrative Grade
(JAG) because at that time no disciplinary proceedings were pending
against him and his juniors were given promotion.
3. The Tribunal has framed one question of law, namely,
whether an employee could be denied promotion relating to the va-
CWP No. 11715 of 2011 2
cancy of a particular year on the basis of charge sheet issued to him
and penalty imposed after 8 years merely because DPC did not
meet on time. It has also been found as a fact that the applicant-re-
spondent was eligible in respect of the vacancy for the year 1998-
99 although he was promoted on ad hoc basis in the year 1999 it-
self. The departmental proceedings initiated in the year 2001 would
not adversely impact his claim for promotion in respect of the va-
cancy for the year 1998-99 or 1999-2000. It was after recording the
aforesaid finding that the petitioners were directed to open the
sealed cover in which the finding of DPC relating to the applicant-re-
spondent for his regular promotion to the JAG cadre of ITC Group-A
against the vacancy for the year 1999-2000 were placed and given
effect to the same. If he is otherwise found fit in accordance with
the rules and law then he is to be considered for regular promotion
from the date his juniors were considered with all consequential
benefits.
4. We have heard learned counsel at a considerable length
and find that no exception is provided to interfere in the view taken
by the Tribunal. The writ petition does not merit admission and the
same is accordingly dismissed.
(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
(GURDEV SINGH)
July 8, 2011 JUDGE
PKapoor