JUDGMENT 1. - Both these writ petitions filed by the petitioner are inter-related and, therefore, it is proper to decide them by a common order. 2. In writ petition No.4381/89 facts have been given in detail and developments which have taken place after filing of writ petition No.105.), 'have also been incorporated and, therefore, it would be proper to refer to the facts of writ petition No.4381/89. 3. The petitioner was initially employed as Labour Inspector vide order dated 25.5.67. He joined this post on 17.6.67. After passing the departmental examination, he was placed on probation of two years w.e.f. 30.9.70 was confirmed as Labour Inspector w.e.f. 31.3.72 by order dated 19.7.72. The petitioner successfully passed the requisite training for the post of Labour Inspector. In the seniority list of Labour Inspector issued on 27.5.80, frame of the petitioner has been placed at Sr.No.15. All the respondents have been shown below the petitioner i.e. at Sr.No.16, 20, 21, 22 and 23. After considering the objections this list was finalised and the position of the petitioner vis a vis respondents Nos. 2 to 6 was maintained. The petitioner passed departmental examination for the post of Labour Welfare Officer in October, 1980. 4. The petitioner had been placed under suspension vide order dated 6.4.76 on account of contemplation of a departmental enquiry. He was served with a charge-sheet for holding of an inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1958'). The inquiry resulted in imposition of a punishment of stopage of one annual grade increment for one year without commutative effect. The period of suspension was ordered to be treated as duty for all purposes including pay etc. 5. Question of promotion to the post of Labour Walfare Officer was referred to the Departmental Promotion Committee which met some time in the year 1979. Apparently the petitioner was found suitable by the Departmental promotion Committee and, therefore, he was recommended for promotion as Labour Welfare Officer. The Government issued order dated 8.5.79 whereby the petitioner was promoted as Labour Welfare Officer under Rule 23(2) of the Labour Walfare Service Rules, 1958. However, by a corrigendum dated 9.7.79, the name of the petitioner was deleted from the order dated 8.5.79. The Government issued order dated 8.5.79 whereby the petitioner was promoted as Labour Welfare Officer under Rule 23(2) of the Labour Walfare Service Rules, 1958. However, by a corrigendum dated 9.7.79, the name of the petitioner was deleted from the order dated 8.5.79. The petitioner then filed writ petition No.I055/81 and prayed that the order dated 9.7.79 be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside. The petitioner's position in the order dated 8.5.79 be restored. He prayed that he be given consequential benefits pertaining to pay, seniority and further promotion to the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner as if corrigendum dated 9.7.79 had never been issued. Prayer was also made for ouster of respondent No.2 in that writ petition and respondent No.6 in writ petition No.4381/89. 6. While writ petition No.1055/81 was pending, another Departmental Promotion Committee met and on it recommendations, two orders were issued on 1.6.83. By one order dated 1.6.83, several persons were promoted as Labour Welfare Officer. Respondent No.2, who was junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Labour Inspectors was promoted as Labour Welfare Officer against the quota of 1979 on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. It was also written that the petitioner had not been found suitable for promotion against the year 1979. He was shown as promoted on the post of Labour Welfare Officer on the basis of seniority-cum,merit against the quota of 1980. The respondents Nos.3 to 6 were also promoted against the quota of 1980 but all these respondents were placed below the petitioner. By the second order dated 1.6.83, promotions to the posts of Assistant Labour Commissioner were made against the quota of years 1979, 1980, 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84. Respondent No.2 was promoted as Assistant Labour Com,missioner against the year 1981-82 on the basis of seniority-cum-merit while respondents Nos. 3 to 6 were promoted against the year 1982-83 and the petitioner was promoted against the year 1983-84. By an order dated 30-6-84 persons holding the posts of Labour Welfare Officer were confirmed from various dates. Respondent No. 2 was confirmed from 1.4.80 whereas the petitioner and respondents Nos.3 to 6 were confirmed from 1.4.81. In the seniority list of con-firmed Labour Welfare Officers issued vide order dated 19.7.84, (showing the position as on 1.4.84), the petitioner was shown at S.No.1 and respondents Nos. 3 to 6 were shown below him at S.Nos.2 to 5. Respondent No. 2 was confirmed from 1.4.80 whereas the petitioner and respondents Nos.3 to 6 were confirmed from 1.4.81. In the seniority list of con-firmed Labour Welfare Officers issued vide order dated 19.7.84, (showing the position as on 1.4.84), the petitioner was shown at S.No.1 and respondents Nos. 3 to 6 were shown below him at S.Nos.2 to 5. A provisional seniority list of Assistant Labour Commissioners was issued on 11.4.89. Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 were shown at S.No.5 to 9 and the petitioner at Sr.No.10. The petitioner made a representation against this seniority list on 24.5.89. 7. The petitioner challenged the orders dated 1.6.84 as well as 30.6.84. The main arguments of the petitioner is that the minor punishment of stopage of one grade increment without comulative effect would not have been made use of for denying promotion to the petitioner on the post of Labour Welfare Officer against the year 1979 and consequently, he could not have been denied promotion as Assistant Labour Commissioner in preference to respondents Nos. 2 to 6. The petitioner has asserted that order dated 1.6.83 related by Assistant Labour Com,missioner is also bad because persons junior to the petitioner have been selected for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 and the petitioner has been assigned the promotion quota of 1983-84 without any reason. According to the petitioner, this also seems to have because of the minor punishment of stopage of one grade increment without cumulative effect. 8. In reply to the writ petition, the respondent No. 1 has admitted that the petitioner was senior in the cadre of Labour Inspectors vis a vis respondents No. 2 to 6. The facts relating to inquiry have also been admitted. The respondent No.1 has denied the pendency of any appeal of the petitioner against the order of punishment. It has been then stated that the petitioner was given promotion by the order dated 8.5.79 by mistake. These promotions have been described as promotions made on ad hoc basis. To ractify the mistake which crept in the order dated 8.5.79, corrigendum dated 9.7.79 was issued. The Departmental Promotion Committee had considered the cases of all eligible persons, who fell within the zone of consideration. The petitioner was not found suitable for promotion to the post of Labour Welfare Officer for the year 1979 but was found suitable for the year 1980. The Departmental Promotion Committee had considered the cases of all eligible persons, who fell within the zone of consideration. The petitioner was not found suitable for promotion to the post of Labour Welfare Officer for the year 1979 but was found suitable for the year 1980. He was found suitable for promotion to the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner for the year 1983-84. The respondent No.1 has stated that the petitioner had never challenged the orders dated 1.6.83 regarding promotion to the post of Labour Welfare Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner. The confirmation order of Labour Welfare Officers as well as the seniority list of Assistant Labour Commissioners was issued on the basis of order dated 1.6.83. The respondent No.1 has also asserted that the petitioner had got an equally efficacious remedy of filing appeal before the Tribunal but he failed to avail this remedy of appeal. He is, therefore, not entitled to be heard. 9. So far as the writ petition No.1055/81 is concerned, all the facts stated therein have already been incorporated in writ No. 4381/89 and, therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the same in detail. Suffice it to say that the petitioner had challenged the order dated 9.7.79 which was described as a corrigendum to order dated 8.5.79. 10. Shri R.C. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, strongly contended that a minor punishment of stopage of one grade increment without comulative effect could not have been made use of for denying promotion to the petitioner on the post of Labour Welfare Officer against the quota of 1979. Departmental Promotion Committee had in fact found him suitable for promotion when it met in the year 1979 and only on that basis he had been given promotion by order dated 8.5.79. The corrigendum dated 9.7.79 was issued under a mis conceived motion that the petitioner was not entitled to be promoted because of minor punishment of stopage of one grade increment without cumulative effect. It has been further submitted that the subsequent Departmental Promotion Committee, which had virtually reviewed the promotions made in the year 1979, could not have taken into consideration the minor penalty of stopage of one grade increment without cumulative effect for declaring the petitioner unsuitable. It has been further submitted that the subsequent Departmental Promotion Committee, which had virtually reviewed the promotions made in the year 1979, could not have taken into consideration the minor penalty of stopage of one grade increment without cumulative effect for declaring the petitioner unsuitable. According to Shri joshi, no other adversity exists in the record of the petitioner, and, there,fore, his non-selection against the year 1979 for the post of Labour Welfare Officer is clearly unlawful. The Petitioner has been discriminated because of unfair consideration. Regarding promotions to the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Shri joshi argued that supersession of the petitioner is founded only on the stopage of one grade increment without cumulative effect. He, further submitted that once it is found that he was wrongly denied promotion as Labour Welfare Officer against the year 1979, his seniority had also not been properly considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner. 11. Shri N.L. Pareek, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner's candidature was duly considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and the D.P.C. had made recommendations after thorough examination of the record of all persons, who fell within the zone of consideration. This recommendation was accepted by the Government and then the orders of promotion were issued. The promotion given in the year 1979 was in fact an ad hoc promotion. The petitioner was given promotion by order dated 8.5.79 by mistake and, therefore, it became necessary to issue corrigendum. Similar submission has been made by Shri Pareek regarding promotion to the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner. Shri Pareek urged that all these promotions have been made on the recommendations of the DPC. Shri Pareek argued that this Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal on the recommendations of the D.P.C. Shri Pareek also argued that the writ petition No.4381 of 1989 has been filed after long lapse of time. His submission is that challenge has been made by the petitioner after a period of six years to the order issued on 1.6.83 and, there is no reason for this court to unsettle the settled position after such a long period of time. He submitted that the petitioner did not even represent against the orders dated 1.6.83. His representation against the provisional seniority list of Assistant Labour Com,missioners is of no consequence. That list was issued in 1989. He submitted that the petitioner did not even represent against the orders dated 1.6.83. His representation against the provisional seniority list of Assistant Labour Com,missioners is of no consequence. That list was issued in 1989. That list is founded on the two orders dated 1.6.83 and consequently orders of confirmation on the post of Labour Welfare Officer. Shri Pareek submitted that a person, who has kept silence for a period of six years, is not entitled to any relief from this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction. Shri Pareek invited my attention to the fact that in reply to the writ petition No.1055/81, copy of the order dated 1.6.83 had been placed on the record of the Court as early as in the year 1985. The petitioner very well knew about this order and still he did not challenge the order dated 1.6.83. Shri Pareek also argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1976. He has failed to avail this remedy and on that count also he is not entitled to get any relief from this Court. 12. In my opinion, the argument of Shri Pareek about the delay and latches in filing of the writ petition No.4381/89 cannot be accepted in the peculiar facts of this case. It is true that normally this Court shall not give relief to a person, who keep silence for long period before approaching this Court for exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it all depend on the facts of each case and the Court had wide discretion in entertaining the writ petition filed after lapse of some years if it is satisfied that ends of justice would warrant the interference by this Court. Facts of this case clearly disclose that in the year 1979 the D.P.C. had found the petitioner suitable for promotion and order dated 8.5.79 was issued promoting the petitioner as Labour Welfare Officer on the recommendation of the D.P.C. All the respondents except respondent No.6 had been promoted by that order. It was only by corrigendum dated 9.7.79 that the name of respondent No.6 was substituted in place of the petitioner. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing the writ petition. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not vigilant in prosecuting his remedy. It was only by corrigendum dated 9.7.79 that the name of respondent No.6 was substituted in place of the petitioner. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing the writ petition. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not vigilant in prosecuting his remedy. It is true that he has not challenged. the orders dated 1.6.83 regarding promotion to the post of Labour Welfare Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner expeditiously but the fact remains that the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was still pending when order dated 1.6.83 regarding promotions to the post of Labour Welfare Officer and another order dated 1.6.83 regarding promotion to the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner was issued. All other orders are consequential.Once it is found that the petitioner had not been fairly considered for promotion to the post of Labour Welfare Officer, he will certainly be entitled to consequential benefits. 13. In so far as the objection relating to alternative remedy is concerned, in my view this objection is mis-conceived firstly, the earlier writ petition No.1055/81 was still pending when writ No.4381/89 was filed; secondly, the remedy before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal is not absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition. I do not consider it to be a fit case in which the writ petitions can be dismissed only on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal before the Tribunal. 14. Now coming to the merits of the case, as far as the petitioner is concerned, he has come with the specific case that he was in fact promoted as Labour Welfare Officer on the recommendation of the DPC in the year 1979. His name has been included in the order dated 8-5-79. Only by corrigendum dated 9.7.79, his name was deleted from the list of promotees. Thus, the DPC had itself not considered punishment of stopage of one grade increment without comulative effect as sufficient to adjudge the petitioner unsuitable for promotion to the post of Labour Welfare Officer. The subsequent Departmental Promotion Committee, which reviewed the earlier promotions could not have treated the petitioner unsuitable only on the basis of the punishment, referred to hereinabove. For the delinquency, which the petitioner had committed, he had already been punished. The subsequent Departmental Promotion Committee, which reviewed the earlier promotions could not have treated the petitioner unsuitable only on the basis of the punishment, referred to hereinabove. For the delinquency, which the petitioner had committed, he had already been punished. It was open to the Disciplinary Authority viz., the Government, to have imposed penalty of with holding of promotion on the petitioner having regard to the gravity of the delinquency or mis-conduct committed by him. The Government did not consider the mis-conduct of the petitioner to be of such nature which warranted punishment of with holding of promotion. It further imposed the punishment of with holding of increment for one year without cumulative effect. Denial of promotion to the petitioner only on the ground of that penalty would clearly amount to punishing him twice for the same act of delinquency. The punishment of stopage of a grade increment without cumulative effect as the effect of depriving the Government servant of benefit of increment which he earns during course of year but it does not have any future adverse effect. How,ever,with holding of promotion adversely effect the Government servant in the scheme of Rajasthan Service Rules, forever in as much as he looses the seniority for all times to come and thus, he suffers for the remaining part of his service career. 15. In D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2151/1986 - Premchand Kasliwal v. State of Rajasthan (decided by a Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.C. Agrawal, as he then was and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Mohini Kapur on 10.7.89) this Court referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Haryana State Electricity Board, Chandigarh and others (1988(3) SLR 524) and then proceeded to observe as under:The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision is applicable to the present case because here also as a result of the imposition of penalty of with-holding of two increments without cumulative effect the petitioner was deprived of the monetary benefit of two increments only. The said penalty of stoppage of two increments was without any future effect. It could not have any effect in the matter of promotion of the petitioner. The said penalty of stoppage of two increments was without any future effect. It could not have any effect in the matter of promotion of the petitioner. Denial of promotion to the petitioner on the basis of the said penalty in substance amounts to imposition of penalty of with-holding of promotion on the petitioner and that would mean that the petitioner has been punished twice, first by stopage of increments for two years and the second, by with- holding of promotion on the post of Office Assistant in 1983. Since the order dated 19th September, 1984, whereby respondent No.3 was promoted on the post of Office Assistant and the petitioner was denied promotion, was based only on the fact that by order dated 7th July, 1980 penalty of with-holding of two increments without cumulative effect had been imposed on the petitioner the said order cannot be upheld and must be set aside. For the same reason the order dated 4th July, 1986 passed by the Tribunal cannot be upheld and must be set aside. The matter of promotion of the petitioner on the post of Office Assistant against the vacancy of the year 1983 will have to be reconsidered by the D.P.C. on the basis of seniority-cum-merit."In D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.7/90, Rameshwar Prasad v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 23.3.1990 , same view has been expressed by the Court. 16. In my view, in light of the judgments of two Division Benches, it must be held that the punishment of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect imposed on the petitioner as a result of departmental enquiry, could not have been used so as to deny him promotion in the cadre of Labour Welfare Officers against the quota of 1979. If there was no other adverse material, the petitioner had a legal right to be promotion because the criteria for promotion on the basis of which persons junior to him had been promoted were seniority-cum,merit. In my view, the corrigendum dated 9.7.79 as well as the order dated 1.6.83, in so far as it treats the petitioner unsuitable for promotion as labour Welfare Officer against the quota of 1979 have not been passed in accordance with law. In my view, the corrigendum dated 9.7.79 as well as the order dated 1.6.83, in so far as it treats the petitioner unsuitable for promotion as labour Welfare Officer against the quota of 1979 have not been passed in accordance with law. The petitioner has not been fairly considered because the declaration of un,suitability of the petitioner is founded on an irrelevant consideration viz., punishment of with holding of one grade increment without cumulative effect. The failure of the respondent No. 1 to consider the candidature of the petitioner fairly has resulted in discrimination against the petitioner and, therefore, there has been a violation of the constitutional right of the petitioner relating to equal protection of laws. The logical consequences of this is that the petitioner is entitled to reconsideration of his candidature for promotion as Labour Welfare Officer against the quota of 1979 by excluding the punishment of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect and if he is otherwise found suitable, certainly he will have right to be promoted as Labour Welfare Officer against the quota of 1979. Consequently he will also be entitled to reconsideration of his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner quota his juniors. If there is no other adverse material in the record of the petitioner, certainly the DPC will have to revise the year of allotment for the petitioner for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner. For this purpose, it is not necessary to quash the order dated 1.6.83 relating to promotions to the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner. 17. The result of the above discussion is that the above writ petitions Nos. 1055/81 and 4381/89 are allowed. The corrigendum dated 9.7.79 as well as the order dated 1.6.83 in so far as it declares the petitioner unsuitable for promotion on the post of Labour Welfare Officer against the quota of 1979 are quashed. The petitioner's candidates for promotion as Labour Welfare Officer shall be reconsidered by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The punishment of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect shall not be taken into consideration by the review D.P.C. while considering the case of the petitioner for promotion as Labour Welfare Officer against the quota of 1979. The petitioner's candidates for promotion as Labour Welfare Officer shall be reconsidered by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The punishment of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect shall not be taken into consideration by the review D.P.C. while considering the case of the petitioner for promotion as Labour Welfare Officer against the quota of 1979. If the petitioner is adjudged suitable by the Departmental Promotion Committee, he shall be treated to have been promoted as Labour Welfare Officer against the quota of 1979. Consequent to this, the candidature of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner shall also be reconsidered and if the petitioner is found suitable for any year prior to 1983-84, he shall be given such promotion with all consequential benefits. The respondent No.1 is directed to convene review Departmental Promotion Committee in compliance of the direction of this Court and pass necessary order within a period of three months. The parties shall bear their own costsWrit Petition Allowed - Direction issued for petitioner's case for promotion to be considered. *******