Judgment R.A.Sharma, J. 1. Whether the petitioner-appellant, whose claim for promotion to higher posts was not considered earlier on account of pendency of the departmental proceedings, is entitled to be considered for promotion with retrospective effect and consequential benefits after he has been exonerated from the charges? Is the question involved in this appeal. 2. The appellant is an employee of the Government of India undertaking, known as Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company). In the year 1985 he was promoted as the Zonal Engineer. In the year 1989 his case for promotion to the next higher post of Superintending Engineer was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee, but it was not considered because the departmental proceeding was contemplated against him. A charge-sheet dated 30.3.1992 was served on him, in response to which he submitted his reply. The departmental proceeding remained pending for considerable long period. It was only on 7.3.1996 that he received a letter dated 27.6.1995 issued by the Managing Director, whereby he was informed that he has been found guilty of having failed in his duty and a minor punishment of stopping of one annual increment with effect from 1.4.1996 has been imposed on him. Being aggrieved thereby the appellant filed CWJC No. 950 of 1996 (R) before this Court. A learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 7.2.1997 allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the said order of punishment with the observation that the appellant is entitled to get promotional benefit. 3. Pursuant to the said judgment or this Court, the appellant filed a representation dated 14.2.1997 for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer with retrospective effect from the date when his juniors had been promoted. Vide order dated 30.4.1997 the Company promoted the appellant as Superintending Engineer (C)/Senior Manager (C), but not with retrospective effect except in the matter of seniority, which was to be counted with effect from 1.12.1993. The appellant, therefore, filed another representation before the management of the Company seeking promotion with effect from the date from which his junior was promoted. The Company vide its letter dated 6.10.1997 informed the appellant that his representation cannot be considered as the same is not as per its rule. The appellant, therefore, filed another representation before the management of the Company seeking promotion with effect from the date from which his junior was promoted. The Company vide its letter dated 6.10.1997 informed the appellant that his representation cannot be considered as the same is not as per its rule. By the said letter, the appellant was further asked to let them know as to why he did not submit the representation as per the grievance procedure and thereby committed misconduct. The appellant, thereafter, filed CWJC No. 3219 of 1997 (R) seeking quashing of the letter dated 6.10.1997. Prayer for promotion with effect from 1989 is also there. There are also prayers for incidental and consequential reliefs in connection therewith. This Writ Petition has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 9.4.1998 with the observation that the appellant should make fresh representation according to the grievance procedure of the Company for promotion from the year 1989. Being aggrieved thereby the appellant has filed this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that in 1989 the appellants promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer was not considered on account of the departmental proceeding and he has been exonerated of the charges in view of the judgment of this Court in CWJC No. 950 or 1996 (R), he is entitled to be promoted with retrospective effect, at least from the date on which his juniors were promoted to the higher posts with all consequential benefits. In support of this submission, the learned Counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in CO. Arumugam and Ors. V/s. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 1990 (1) SLR 288. The submission has merit. 6. The Supreme Court In CO. Arumugam and Ors. (supra), has laid down as under- 5. As to the merits of the matter, it is necessary to state that every civil servant has a right to have his case considered for promotion according to his turn and it is a guarantee flowing from Articles. 14 and 16(1) or the Constitution. The consideration of promotion could be postponed only on reasonable grounds. To avoid arbitrariness it would be better to follow certain uniform principle. 14 and 16(1) or the Constitution. The consideration of promotion could be postponed only on reasonable grounds. To avoid arbitrariness it would be better to follow certain uniform principle. The promotion of persons against whom charge has been framed in the discipline proceedings or charge-sheet has been filed in criminal case may be deferred till the proceedings are concluded. They must however, be considered for promotion if they are exonerated or acquitted from the charges. If found suitable, they shall then be given the promotion with retrospective effect from the date on which their juniors were promoted. After having held as above, the Supreme Court directed for consideration of the claims of the concerned employees therein for promotion with effect from the dates on which their juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits. 7 In the instant case as mentioned above the appellants claim for promotion was not considered in 1989 because of the departmental proceedings. After he was exonerated he was entitled to get his case for promotion considered with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits, but that has not been done. Although he was granted promotion on 30.4.1997 but not with retrospective effect and without any consequential benefits except in the matter of seniority, which is to be counted with effect from 1.12.1993. When he made the representation seeking promotion with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted, his representation was turned down on the ground that it was not filed according to the grievance procedure of the company. Not only that he was further asked to let the company know as to why he has committed misconduct by not following the grievance procedure. Instead of correcting its own mistake on account of which he was denied promotion with retrospective effect and with consequential benefits, the Company has rejected his representation only on the ground of procedural error which could have been ignored in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned case is fully attracted in the present case. There was not justification to treat his representation as an act of misconduct. The Company, therefore, was duty bound to follow that law, but it has failed to do so. The law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned case is fully attracted in the present case. There was not justification to treat his representation as an act of misconduct. The Company, therefore, was duty bound to follow that law, but it has failed to do so. The learned Single Judge also disposed of the Writ Petition merely asking the appellant to make fresh representation according to the grievance procedure of the Company. His case was liable to be considered on merits in accordance with law. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal Is allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 9.4.1998 passed in CWJC No. 3219 of 1997 (R) is set aside. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and the letter dated 6.10.1997 of the Company is quashed. The appellant is given liberty to file a fresh representation seeking promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer and other higher posts at least from the date on which his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits, along with the certified copy of this order before the Chairman and Managing Director of the Company (respondent No. 2), The said respondent will decide the said representation by speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. The order which may be passed shall be communicated to the appellant within two weeks of the decision. A.K.Prasad, J. 9 I agree.