JUDGMENT (Surjit Singh, J.) (Oral) - Writ petition is aggrieved by the order dated 30th December, 2004 of H.P.State Administrative Tribunal, whereby his Original application No. 746/1997 seeking directions to the respondents to confirm him from the date of his juniors were confirmed as Police Inspectors and also to give him promotion as Dy. Superintendent of Police from the dates his juniors were so promoted, has been dismissed. 2.Relevant facts may be summed up thus. Writ Petition started his career as a constable in police department in the year 1958. By getting promotion, he became an Inspector some time in the year 1989. It appears that some adverse entries were recorded in his ACRs for the year 1990-91 and 1991-92. Therefore, when the matter regarding confirmation of Inspectors were taken up, he was not confirmed but his juniors were confirmed w.e.f. 17.7.1993 (Annexure A-9). Writ petition applied for expunction of adverse remarks in the ACRs. Matter, however, remained pending with the authorities for too long. In the meanwhile, some vacancies of Dy.S.Ps became available in the department for being filled for promotion from amongst the inspectors. Writ petition was ignored, because he was not a confirmed Inspector, with the result that those who were juniors to him, came to be promoted. This order was passed on 13.5.1994 (Annexure A-10). Writ petitioner aggrieved by the actions of the respondents in not confirming him and then not promoting him, filed an OA before the Tribunal, which was registered as OA No. 871/1995. Vide order dated 23.6.1995, Tribunal ordered the OA to be considered as representation, by Secretary (Home). 3.In the meanwhile, adverse remarks recorded in the aforesaid two ACRs of the writ petitioner were expunged. A Departmental Promotion Committee met and passed the order that the writ petition be confirmed from the date of expunction of his remarks i.e. 11.2.1994. Copy of the proceedings recorded by the Department Promotion Committee is Annexure R-1. Consequently, writ petition confirmed from 11.2.1994. Writ Petition was not satisfied by this order because his juniors had been confirmed w.e.f. 17.7.1993 but he was ignored only on account of aforesaid two adverse entries in his ACRs which had later on been expunged. Copy of the proceedings recorded by the Department Promotion Committee is Annexure R-1. Consequently, writ petition confirmed from 11.2.1994. Writ Petition was not satisfied by this order because his juniors had been confirmed w.e.f. 17.7.1993 but he was ignored only on account of aforesaid two adverse entries in his ACRs which had later on been expunged. He was also aggrieved on account of his having not been prompted to the rank of Dy.S.P. 4.The Secretary (Home) who was directed to treat the earlier OA 871/95 as representation, rejected the same vide order dated 4.7.1995 (Annexure P-2) which conveys no sense and which suggests that the home department of the State Government is manned by totally incompetent officers. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed OA No. 746/1997 seeking direction to the respondents to confirm him from 17.7.1993 and also to promote him from 13.6.1994, the dates from which his juniors were confirmed and promoted. Learned Tribunal has dismissed the OA holding that the same was filed six years after the cause of action accrued to the writ petitioner and he had not explained this long delay. 5.We have gone through the records and heard the learned counsel of the writ petitioner as also Sh.P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General. We are constrained to observe that the learned Tribunal has observed contrary to the facts that there was long delay of six years in seeking relief, on the part of the writ petitioner. As noticed here-in-above, representation of the writ petitioner was rejected by the Secretary (Home) vide letter dated 4.7.1995 (Annexure P-2). Writ petitioner filed OA before the Tribunal in March, 1997, i.e. to say in less than two years of the rejection of his representation, vide Annexure P-2. It may be noticed that the writ petitioner retired from service on 30th June, 1995. There is nothing on record indicating as to when the order dated 4.7.1995, Annexure P-2 was conveyed to the writ petitioner. Order Annexure P-2 is addressed by the Secretary (Home) to the Inspector General of Police, Shimla. This order was not even endorsed to the petitioner. Respondents have not disclosed as to when the copy of this order was made available to the writ petitioner, nor have they placed on record copy of any communication addressed to the writ petitioner conveying the decision regarding rejection of his representation. This order was not even endorsed to the petitioner. Respondents have not disclosed as to when the copy of this order was made available to the writ petitioner, nor have they placed on record copy of any communication addressed to the writ petitioner conveying the decision regarding rejection of his representation. 6.Under these circumstances, learned Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the OA on the ground of delay. In any case as demonstrated here-in-above, delay was of less than two years, but learned Tribunal mis-calculated it to be six years. No other reason for dismissal of OA is assigned by the Tribunal. Consequently, we hold that the order of the learned Tribunal is patently illegal and is, therefore, set aside. 7.Coming to the merits of the case, admittedly, the writ petitioner was not confirmed alongwith his juniors because there were adverse entries in his ACRs for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92. Writ petitioner made representations against those entries. His representation were accepted. The remarks recorded in his ACRs for the year 1990-91 were expunged vide order dated 28.8.1993 and the remarks recorded in the ACR for the year 1991-92 were expunged vide order dated 11.2.1994 per Annexure R-1, copy of the minutes of Department Promotion Committee. Now, when the adverse remarks in the aforesaid two ACRs which stood in the way of confirmation of the writ petitioner had been expunged and there was no other reason for not confirming him, he ought to have been confirmed at least on and with effect from the date his juniors were confirmed if not before that date. As already noticed, his juniors were confirmed after the expunction of adverse remarks from his aforesaid ACRs w.e.f. 17.7.1994. Accordingly, we hereby direct that the petitioner is to be deemed to have been confirmed on and w.e.f. 17.7.1994 and is to be deemed to be senior to all those persons, who were juniors to him as Inspectors, prior to passing of the order of confirmation dated 17.7.1993 Annexure A-9. 8.Since the writ petitioner is to be deemed to have been confirmed and w,e.f 17.7.1993 alongwith his juniors, he is entitled to be considered for promotion along with all those Inspectors, who were juniors to his as inspectors prior to the passing of the order dated 17.7.1993, Annexure A-9. 8.Since the writ petitioner is to be deemed to have been confirmed and w,e.f 17.7.1993 alongwith his juniors, he is entitled to be considered for promotion along with all those Inspectors, who were juniors to his as inspectors prior to the passing of the order dated 17.7.1993, Annexure A-9. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to consider the writ petitioner for promotion to the rank of Dy.S.P. and with effect from the date his immediate junior was promoted and in case on such consideration he is found to be eligible, give him promotion as Dy.S.P. with all consequential benefits. 9.We order that our aforesaid directions regarding consideration of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Dy. S.P. and giving of all consequential benefits, if he is found eligible and promoted, be complied with within one month from today. A copy of the order be given dasti to Sh.P.K.Sharma, learned Addl. Advocate General who shall send the same by his own forwarding letter to the Secretary (Home) within 3 days from today. 10.Writ petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid directions. M.R.B. ——————-