Lt. Governor of Delhi v. J.P. Gupta

1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * The petitioner has impugned the order dated 29th July, 2009 in OA No.1846 of 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi titled Shri J.P. Gupta v. GNCT of Delhi and others allowing the plea of the respondent to grant him promotion with effect from 25th September, 2001 when he was relieved to join the ex cadre post in DANICS and to pay all the difference of arrears of the pay with effect from 25th September, 2001 till he was actually promoted on ad hoc basis on 30th January, 2008. 2009:DHC:5285-DB The respondent had claimed promotion on ad hoc basis on an ex cadre post in DANICS with effect from 11th September, 2001 which was denied to him on the ground that he was placed under suspension and was also facing a disciplinary proceeding. The respondent was exonerated from the disciplinary proceedings and the promotion was given to him from 2008 before his retirement. The suspension of the respondent was also revoked, however, retrospective promotion was not given to him on the ground that it would not apply in case of a retiree. The Tribunal relied on (2004) 11 SCC 210, Mohd. Ahmad v. Nizam Sugar Factory and others, wherein an employee was granted promotion though the employee had retired and it was held that on account of wrongful denial of promotion, the relief to the applicant could not be set at knot merely because the employee had retired in the meantime later on. The Tribunal had also relied on Gopi Chand Bishnoi v. State of U.P., (2006) 9 SCC 694 holding that retrospective promotion of a government servant who had a right of promotion cannot be denied on account of retirement of such employee. Reliance has also been placed on the circular of DoPT dated 14th September, 1992 Clause 7 whereof contemplates that in case of pendency of disciplinary proceedings sealed cover procedure should be employed. It is no more res integra that sealed cover procedure is to be resorted after chargesheet is issued. And when an employee is completely exonerated, meaning thereby that he is not found blameworthy and is not visited with the penalty even of censure, he has to be given the benefit of the salary of higher post along with other benefits from the date of which he would have normally been promoted but for the disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court in case of Union of India and others v. K.V. Janaki Raman, (1991) 4 SCC 109, relied on by the Tribunal, held that benefits to the employee from the date he would have normally been promoted cannot be denied on the principle of „no work no pay‟ as the normal rule of “no work no pay” is not applicable to such case. The reason given was that in such cases an employee although is willing to work is kept away from the work by the authorities for no fault of his and basing a case where the employee remains away from work for no reason, although the work is offered to him and in the circumstances applying fundamental rules 17(1), the emoluments cannot be denied in such cases. The Supreme Court had held in paras 25 and 26 of K.V. Janaki Raman (supra) is as under:-

2008. There are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. ANIL KUMAR, J. December 09, 2009 VIPIN SANGHI, J. „Dev‟