Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 173 (MP)

Gambhir Singh Chahar v. Union of India

2008-02-01

R.S.JHA

body2008
Judgment ( 1. ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner on I. A no. 13324/2007 for condonation of delay. For the reasons mentioned therein, the application is allowed. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. ( 2. ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his petition had been allowed by this Court vide order dated 1. 3. 2007, directing the respondents to convene a review DPC and consider his case for promotion on the post of Naib Subedar as on April 2006. The respondent authorities have assailed this order before the Division bench of this Court by filing a Writ Appeal which is registered as W. A no. 620/2007. ( 3. ) IT is submitted that in the grounds taken by the respondents in the appeal they have, for the first time, brought on record the fact that the petitioner was not entitled to promotion as a Departmental proceeding was pending against him which culminated in imposition of punishment vide order dated 15. 7. 2006 and that it is for this reason that the petitioner was found ineligible for promotion when his case was examined consequent to the order passed by this Court in W. P no. 12797/2006 (S) dated 1. 3. 2007. ( 4. ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of these additional grounds raised by the respondents for the first time in appeal, the petitioner is also required to reassert his relief and claim for consideration of his case for promotion in the year 2004-05, however, as these issues had not been taken up by the respondents in the Writ Petition before this Court, the petitioner had restricted his relief only to the grant of promotion w. e. f. 1. 5. 2006 and had given up his claim for promotion w. e. f. December 2004/january 2005 and because of his giving up this claim in the Writ Petition, the petitioner is now unable to take up all the issues regarding the departmental proceedings, his entitlement for promotion in 2004/05 and denial of promotion, etc. before the Division Bench in appeal and, therefore, he be permitted to withdraw the said statement made by him and be permitted to take up all issues before the Division Bench including his claim for consideration for promotion w. e. f. Dec. 2004/jan. before the Division Bench in appeal and, therefore, he be permitted to withdraw the said statement made by him and be permitted to take up all issues before the Division Bench including his claim for consideration for promotion w. e. f. Dec. 2004/jan. 2005. ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the relief sought by the petitioner and has stated that the pendency of the departmental proceedings and imposition of punishment upon the petitioner vide order dated 15. 7. 2006 was brought on record in the reply filed in the writ petition and was well within the knowledge of the petitioner and, therefore, no relief as sought by him, can be granted. It is also submitted that the respondents in the return had stated that the petitioner was ineligible for being considered for promotion in the year 2004-05 as he had not passed the "s" Course which is an essential eligibility qualification. ( 6. ) AS is evident from a perusal of the return filed by the respondents in the Writ Petition, and is also not denied by them before this Court, the respondents had not taken up any plea regarding pendency of the departmental proceedings or imposition of the order of punishment dated 15. 7. 2006 in the Writ Petition except in reference to the ineligibility of the petitioner for extension of service and not as a ground for denial of promotion. ( 7. ) HAVING heard the learned counsels for the parties at length, who also state that all the issues have been reopened and taken up before the Division Bench including the eligibility or otherwise of the petitioner to be granted promotion as well as the correctness, relevancy, etc. of the pleadings, I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice and for giving quitus to the issues, the petitioner deserves to be permitted to raise all the issues before the Division bench which, as informed, has heard the matter extensively and, therefore, the undertaking given by the petitioner in para-1 of the order dated 1. 3. 2007, whereby it has been recorded that he has given up his claim for promotion w. e. f. Dec. 2004/jan. 2005, is permitted to be withdrawn. ( 8. 3. 2007, whereby it has been recorded that he has given up his claim for promotion w. e. f. Dec. 2004/jan. 2005, is permitted to be withdrawn. ( 8. ) IT is clarified that as a consequence thereof, the petitioner and the respondents would be at liberty to raise all issues before the division Bench including the petitioner"s claim for promotion for the period Dec. 2004/jan. 2005. ( 9. ) THE application for modification is allowed to the extent indicated above and the order passed by this Court dated 1. 3. 2007 is modified accordingly. ( 10. ) THE order passed in this case shall be read alongwith and part of order dated 1. 3. 2007 passed by the Court in W. P No. 12797/2006 (S) and for that purpose a copy of this order be placed on the record of W. P No. 12797/2006 (S) and be attached with order dated 1. 3. 2007 passed therein.