Aryendra Nath Gupta Vs. Union of India & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5520 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11847 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11847 of 1999)
Petitioner: Aryendra Nath Gupta
Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5520 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11847 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11847 of 1999)
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 27, 2000
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Government service – Right of suspended employee for being con-sidered for promotion – Appellant placed under suspension in 1994 – Subsequently, suspension revoked but DPC not considering him for promotion – Following CAT’s decision, appellant promot-ed, but no relief given with regard to the period of suspension – Appeal in High Court unsuccessful – Whether appellant entitled to promotion during the period he was in suspension. Held, order of suspension having been revoked, promotion should have been considered for that period also. Appeal allowed and respondents directed to consider case according to Rules.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant before us is employed in the Telecom Department. When he was working at Shillong in the year 1994, he had been placed under suspension in view of a criminal prosecution ini-tiated against him. Thereafter it is stated that the order of suspension stood revoked unconditionally. However, in the mean-time, the Departmental Promotion Committee took up the matter of promotion from Assistant Engineer to Surveyor of Works/Executive Engineer and that promotion was not given to him as he was under suspension. The appellant challenged the action of the respond-ents in a proceeding before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati. The Administrative Tribunal gave the relief to the appellant to the extent that after revocation of his suspension, he was entitled to promotion inasmuch as his case should be considered and he was promoted accordingly, but did not state anything about the period for which he was actually under suspen-sion. The appellant carried the matter unsuccessfully to the High Court.
3. The grievance of the appellant before us is that his suspen-sion having been revoked unconditionally, it could not be said that he was not entitled to promotion during the period he was actually under suspension and that aspect should have been exam-ined by the concerned authority. In the circumstances, we find great force in the submission made on behalf of the appellant. Inasmuch as the order of suspension having been revoked uncondi-tionally, his case for promotion as Surveyor of Works/Executive Engineer should have been considered for that period also. If the order of suspension had no effect upon his service, due promotion should be given to him by taking note of this fact. Hence we direct the respondents to consider the case of the appellant as aforesaid in accordance with the Rules and make appropriate adjustments if necessary in the promoted cadre within a period of three months. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant before us is employed in the Telecom Department. When he was working at Shillong in the year 1994, he had been placed under suspension in view of a criminal prosecution ini-tiated against him. Thereafter it is stated that the order of suspension stood revoked unconditionally. However, in the mean-time, the Departmental Promotion Committee took up the matter of promotion from Assistant Engineer to Surveyor of Works/Executive Engineer and that promotion was not given to him as he was under suspension. The appellant challenged the action of the respond-ents in a proceeding before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati. The Administrative Tribunal gave the relief to the appellant to the extent that after revocation of his suspension, he was entitled to promotion inasmuch as his case should be considered and he was promoted accordingly, but did not state anything about the period for which he was actually under suspen-sion. The appellant carried the matter unsuccessfully to the High Court.
3. The grievance of the appellant before us is that his suspen-sion having been revoked unconditionally, it could not be said that he was not entitled to promotion during the period he was actually under suspension and that aspect should have been exam-ined by the concerned authority. In the circumstances, we find great force in the submission made on behalf of the appellant. Inasmuch as the order of suspension having been revoked uncondi-tionally, his case for promotion as Surveyor of Works/Executive Engineer should have been considered for that period also. If the order of suspension had no effect upon his service, due promotion should be given to him by taking note of this fact. Hence we direct the respondents to consider the case of the appellant as aforesaid in accordance with the Rules and make appropriate adjustments if necessary in the promoted cadre within a period of three months. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
