Judgment : These two writ petitions are by the same petitioner. In W.P. No. 40 of 2007, the petitioner has called in question the endorsements issued by respondent 3 dated 7-2-2005 and 9-8-2006 produced at Annexure J and Annexure-N. In W.P. No. 3284 of 2008, the petitioner has called in question the endorsements issued by respondent 3 therein dated 27-2-2006 and 12-1-2008 produced at Annexure-H and Annexure-L, both issued by respondent 3. 2. In W.P. No. 40 of 2007, the grievance of the petitioner is that, his case for promotion to next higher cadre before his juniors are promoted has not been considered and W.P. No. 3284 of 2008 is against the denial of increments for a period between 14-4-1998 to 19-12-2003. 3. Facts in both the writ petitions are identical. Hence, both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. 4. Petitioner joined the services in the Corporation as an Assistant Mechanical Engineer on 17-3-1988. He was issued with articles of charge on 5-6-1994 inter alia alleging that, on 17-1-1994, he has caused deviation to inter-State route for personal purpose. In this regard, an enquiry was held and an order of punishment of removal was passed against him on 13-4-1998. Petitioner called in question the order of removal before this Court in W.P. No. 32066 of 1998 and based on separate memos filed by both the parties, the said writ petition was disposed of on 19-11-2003. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, he was reinstated on 8-12-2003 and on 29-3-2004 his seniority was also restored. Thereafter petitioner made a representation on 23-12-2004 seeking promotion retrospectively from the year 1998, as his batchmates were already promoted. However, the said request was turned down by the respondent 3 by wrongly interpreting the order of this Court and again he made one more representation on 9-12-2006 and even said representation was also negatived by another endorsement dated 9-8-2006. 5. It is stated that, since the order of punishment is set aside by this Court, petitioner became entitled for the notional increments in terms of the order of this Court. When a representation was made to this regard, same was rejected by wrongly interpreting the order of this Court. 6. 5. It is stated that, since the order of punishment is set aside by this Court, petitioner became entitled for the notional increments in terms of the order of this Court. When a representation was made to this regard, same was rejected by wrongly interpreting the order of this Court. 6. Sri N.B. Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, as against the order of removal passed by the Corporation, petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 32066 of 1998 before this Court and this Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of its order produced at Annexure-C. He pointed out that, while the writ petition was pending, petitioner had filed a memo giving up his claim for back wages subject to reinstatement, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. Corporation also filed another memo inter alia stating that, "petitioner having agreed to forego his claim for back wages in full, the Corporation is agreeable to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and related benefits, but without any back wages”. 7. These two memos were considered by this Court and without going into merits of the case, relying on the respective memos, this Court disposed of the writ petition inter alia allowing the writ petition and quashing the order of disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority and directed the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner with all service benefits. However, in view of the petitioner having agreed to give up his claim for back wages, this Court considering the memo filed by the petitioner and the memo filed by the Corporation, accepting the memo filed by both sides, observed that, the petitioner would not be entitled for back wages including annual increment between the aforesaid dates i.e., from the date of removal till the date of passing of the order. Referring to the order of this Court, he further submitted that, the order of punishment passed by the Corporation and confirmed by the Appellate Authority have been quashed by this Court and this Court has not substituted any order of punishment nor any express order is passed, punishing the petitioner. Clause V of the operative portion of the order passed by this Court has to be understood in consonance with respective memos filed by the petitioner as well as the Corporation. Clause V of the operative portion of the order passed by this Court has to be understood in consonance with respective memos filed by the petitioner as well as the Corporation. In this regard, he drew my attention to para 4 of the order of this Court and submitted that, this Court in unequivocal terms has stated that the writ petition is disposed of in view of the memos filed by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and not on merit. Once the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of punishment is quashed, Clause V of the operative portion of the order has to be understood in the context of both the memos and not in isolation. 8. In this regard, he also submitted that, after the order was passed by this Court, petitioner was reinstated as per order dated 8-12-2003 produced at Annexure-D. Thereafter, petitioner also made a representation as per Annexure-E for restoring his seniority, as his name was deleted from the seniority list. He relied on Annexure-F and pointed out that his request for restoring seniority was considered by the Corporation and his original seniority was restored as per Annexure-F produced in W.P. No. 40 of 2007 i.e., his original ranking at Sl. No. 255 was restored. He submitted that, despite the order of punishment having been quashed by this Court, despite the order having been implemented by reinstating the petitioner and restoring his seniority, there was no reason for the Corporation to deny the consideration of his case for promotion to the next higher cadre before his juniors were promoted. He submitted that, when his case was not considered, he gave a representation on 23-12-2004. However, Corporation by its endorsement dated 7-2-2005 referring to the order of this Court and wrongly interpreting the same, denied the promotion on the ground that this Court has imposed punishment of denial of increment between 14-4-1998 to 19-12-2003 and in view of the same, petitioner's case cannot be considered. He also pointed out that the Corporation understood the reinstatement as a fresh appointment and mentioned in Annexure-J as "Puner Nemaka" (Kannada). He submitted that, the petitioner was not reappointed or his service benefits earlier to the order of this Court were not denied, petitioner was reinstated by virtue of order of this Court and there is no question of reappointment or denial of service benefits. He submitted that, the petitioner was not reappointed or his service benefits earlier to the order of this Court were not denied, petitioner was reinstated by virtue of order of this Court and there is no question of reappointment or denial of service benefits. He further submitted that, in view of the order passed by this Court, petitioner is entitled for not only reinstatement into service, but is also entitled for consequential benefits, such as, increments and promotions. He also submitted that, he may not be entitled for the monetary benefits during the period from 1998 to 2003 and submitted that, even otherwise petitioner is entitled for notional increments and all other benefits. He submitted that, Corporation on the memo filed before this Court has only denied the back wages and has not denied any other benefits and the memo has rightly been understood by this Court and monetary benefit during the period between punishment and order of this Court is denied to the petitioner. 9. He submitted that, the impugned endorsement does not give the reasons for denial of consideration, however, in the objection statement filed on behalf of the respondents before this Court, reasons are given to support the decision of the Corporation. He further submitted that, reasons cannot be supplemented by way of objection statement before this Court. He further submitted that, what is intended has to be disclosed in the impugned order itself and cannot be supplemented before this Court by way of objection statement or affidavit. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji AIR 1952 SC 16 and referred to para 9 of the said judgment. 10. Sri R.I.D’Sa, learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation submitted that, the petitioner was removed from service by the Corporation by holding an enquiry and the said order was called in question before this Court in W.P. No. 32066 of 1998. Before this Court, both the petitioner as well as Corporation filed two separate memos and Corporation had not agreed to the memo filed by the petitioner, though petitioner did agree to give up his back wages, however, Corporation independently filed a memo, stating that, in view of the petitioner agreeing to forego full back wages, the petitioner would be reinstated and related service benefits would be given to him. This Court interpreting both the memos has passed an order inter ilia specifically denying the annual increments between 14-4-1998 to 19-12-2003 i.e., the date of removal till the date of passing of the order by this Court. The punishment of removal is substituted by another punishment of denial of increment during the aforesaid period. Hence, case of petitioner cannot be considered for promotion, as he was punished for the misconduct he had committed with the lesser punishment. He submitted that, during the said period, he became ineligible to be considered for the purpose of promotion and the Corporation has rightly issued an endorsement at Annexure-J in W.P. No. 40 of 2007. He further submitted that, though the Corporation has stated that "Puner Nemaka" (Kannada), it cannot be understood as reappointment, it is only reinstatement and submitted that, reinstatement with penalty as ordered by this Court has been considered by the Corporation. He referred to Annexure-J and submitted that, since the penalty has been imposed on the petitioner, petitioner's case is not considered for the said period. In this regard, he relied on two decisions of the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India and Others vs. KV. Jankiraman and Others AIR 1991 SC 2010 : (1991)4 SCC 109 and in the matter of L. Rajaiah v Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad and Others AIR 1996 SC 2199 : (1996)8 SCC 246 : 1996 SCC (L and S) 883 and submitted that, in a case where domestic enquiry is initiated against an employee and if the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) considers the case of the juniors for promotion in view of the pendency of the enquiry, the case of the delinquent officer, who is subjected for departmental enquiry, cannot be considered. In case he has suffered a punishment, for the said period, he becomes ineligible to be considered for promotion. He relied on paras 46, 47 and 48 of the said judgment and submitted that the Apex Court in identical circumstances has observed as under: "48. ... Admittedly further, the employee was punished by an order of August 19, 1988 and his one increment was withheld. Although, therefore, the promotions to his juniors were given with retrospective effect from July 30, 1986, denial of promotion to the employee was not unjustified...”. ... Admittedly further, the employee was punished by an order of August 19, 1988 and his one increment was withheld. Although, therefore, the promotions to his juniors were given with retrospective effect from July 30, 1986, denial of promotion to the employee was not unjustified...”. He submitted that, Corporation having found that this Court has imposed punishment on the petitioner has rightly denied the consideration of his case for promotion for the said period. 11. He also submitted that, in the meanwhile, if the juniors have stolen the march over the petitioner on account of the punishment, Corporation cannot be found fault with. He also submitted that, in view of the punishment of denial of increment, granting of notional increment during the said period also does not arise. It is in this regard. Corporation has rightly issued another endorsement at Annexure-H in W.P. No. 3284 of 2008. 12. Sri N.B. Bhat in reply to the argument of Sri D'Sa, further submitted that, the order of this Court cannot be understood as imposing punishment on the petitioner, this Court only meant to deny the back wages and more specifically, it has denied all monetary benefits between the date of punishment till the date of order of this Court and there is no substitution of any punishment or modifying the order of punishment imposed by the Corporation. Fact that this Court has quashed the order of punishment by allowing the writ petition in toto, presupposes that this Court never intended to impose any punishment and rightly did so in view of the memo filed by both the respective parties. 13. Alternatively he submitted that, the Corporation cannot deny the consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion in accordance with law. Corporation denying the consideration itself is arbitrary and contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Though an employee may not have right to be promoted, but he has every right to be considered for promotion when his juniors are promoted. He pointed out that, when juniors are considered for promotion, petitioner being senior, his case is not considered. 14. Sri D’Sa, learned Counsel by way of counter reply submitted that, Corporation has considered the said aspect and in its endorsement it is stated as to why the case of the petitioner is not considered. Hence, there is no further requirement of consideration by the Corporation. 15. 14. Sri D’Sa, learned Counsel by way of counter reply submitted that, Corporation has considered the said aspect and in its endorsement it is stated as to why the case of the petitioner is not considered. Hence, there is no further requirement of consideration by the Corporation. 15. In the light of the rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 32066 of 1998, dated 19th November, 2003, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion to the next higher cadre before his juniors were promoted? 2. Whether denial of back wages would disentitle the petitioner for consideration of his case for promotion? 16. Facts, which are not in dispute are, that the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of removal against the petitioner on 13-4-1998 and petitioner had filed an appeal against the said order and the appeal also came to be dismissed. Against the order of removal, petitioner had filed W.P. No. 32066 of 1998. In the said writ petition, both the Corporation as well as the petitioner filed separate memos. Though these memos are extracted in the order at Annexure-C, however, it is useful to extract once again in this writ petition also. Memo filed by the petitioner in the said writ petition reads as under: "MEMO Petitioner submits that if the impugned orders are quashed and he is reinstated in service, he will not claim back wages for the period from 13-4-1998 to the date of this Hon'ble Court's order. However, he will be entitled to all other consequential benefits including continuity of service, seniority from the date of his initial appointment, right to be considered for promotion etc. Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned orders and direct his reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits, except back wages, in the interest of justice”. Memo filed by the Corporation reads as under: "RESPONDENTS' MEMO FOR DISPOSAL In view of the petitioner having agreed to forego his claim to back wages in full and the respondents being agreeable to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and related benefits but without any back wages, it is prayed that this petition may kindly be disposed of on the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs”. 17. 17. No doubt, the memo filed by the petitioner is elaborate and clear as regards to the benefits which accrues after denial of back wages. In context of the memo filed by the petitioner, the memo filed by the Corporation required to be appreciated. Corporation in its memo states that, in view of the petitioner having agreed to forego his claim for back wages in full, it agrees to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and related benefits but without back wages and requests this Court to dispose of the writ petition in terms of its memo. This Court in the light of both the memos disposed of the writ petition, it is useful to refer to para 4 of the order, which reads as under: "4. In view of the memos filed by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties to the lis, in my opinion, this Court at this stage need not go into the merits or demerits of the petitioner's case. Accordingly, the following: ORDER I. Writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. II. The impugned orders made by the Appellate Authority dated 9-9-1998 in confirming the order made by the Disciplinary Authority dated 13-4-1998 are set aside. III. A direction is issued to the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service within fifteen (15) days' from today. .IV. Petitioner is entitled only for service benefits from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement into service. .V. It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to any back wages whatsoever from the date of the order of dismissal till the date of reinstatement into service and further he is also not entitled to any annual increments from the aforesaid dates". 18. There is no doubt that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case and it has disposed of the writ petition based on the memos filed by the respective parties. If the memos are accepted, even assuming that the petitioner did mention all the consequential benefits, this Court has not rejected the memos, reading of both the memos, it is clear that, the petitioner had agreed to give up his full claim of back wages. If the memos are accepted, even assuming that the petitioner did mention all the consequential benefits, this Court has not rejected the memos, reading of both the memos, it is clear that, the petitioner had agreed to give up his full claim of back wages. Corporation in its memo has agreed to reinstate the petitioner provided, petitioner foregoes back wages in full and has agreed to give benefit of continuity of service and related benefits, memo does not say that the petitioner though claimed all such other benefits in the memo are denied. Both the parties did understand that the petitioner would not be entitled for the back wages, however, he would be entitled for continuity of service and related service benefits. 19. In Clause V of the operative portion of the order of this Court, this Court in a very specific term has made it clear that the petitioner would not be entitled for back wages whatsoever from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement. To emphasise the same, this Court further has observed that, petitioner would not be entitled for annual increment during the said period. When the petitioner has given up his claim for back wages, in order to clarify that giving up of back wages in full should not mean or understood that the petitioner would be entitled for increments during said period. To make it clear what is back wages and what are the monetary benefits, this Court has elaborated only back wages as monetary benefits during that period. In my opinion, order of this Court cannot be understood as substituting the order of punishment. This Court has allowed the writ petition and has made it clear that petitioner would not be entitled for back wages and that is in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner and accepted by the Corporation, Clause V of the order has been passed and it has to be understood in the context of both the memos and not in isolation and it is also clear at para 4 itself inter alia stating that the writ petition is disposed of in view of the memos filed by the parties. 20. It is clear from the order of this Court, that the petitioner would not be entitled for the back wages or any other monetary benefits between 1998 to 2003. 20. It is clear from the order of this Court, that the petitioner would not be entitled for the back wages or any other monetary benefits between 1998 to 2003. Except this, no other service benefit is denied to the petitioner. In my opinion, the understanding of the Corporation treating the order passed by this Court as imposing punishment on the petitioner and thereby denying the consideration of his case for promotion is misconceived. 21. As regards to the decision in the cases of K.V. Jankirarnan and L. Rajaiah, the Apex Court while considering the case of sealed cover i.e., when a domestic enquiry is initiated against delinquent employee and during which period the DPC is met for considering the case for promotion, non-consideration of the case of the delinquent employee during the said period is justified as the employee pending enquiry against him is not entitled for consideration for promotion and his case will be kept in sealed cover. In case the employee is punished for misconduct, he is not entitled for consideration of his case for promotion during the said period or retrospectively. 22. In this case such a situation does not arise, as there was no meeting of DPC for considering the promotions during the pendency of the departmental enquiry or during the pendency of the writ petition before this Court. Admittedly, what is denied is back wages between 1998 and 2003 and admittedly, both the parties had agreed for continuity of service and related benefits. Corporation has also restored the seniority of the petitioner. In the light of the same, I am of the considered opinion that the endorsement of the Corporation erroneously interpreting the order of this Court and thereby denying the consideration of the case of the petitioner is misconceived. When Corporation itself has accepted that it is agreeable to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and other service benefits, it has to be understood that except the back wages, for all other benefits, the petitioner became entitled and he cannot be denied of such benefits, which is otherwise not denied by this Court. Further, Corporation having restored ranking of the petitioner in the seniority list, it has not justified in not considering the case of petitioner for promotion. 23. Even as regard to the consideration of grant of notional increment is concerned. Corporation was not justified in denying granting of notional increments. Further, Corporation having restored ranking of the petitioner in the seniority list, it has not justified in not considering the case of petitioner for promotion. 23. Even as regard to the consideration of grant of notional increment is concerned. Corporation was not justified in denying granting of notional increments. This Court has not denied the increments, but denied the payment of increment during the said period. Petitioner is entitled for notional increment. 24. In the light of the above discussion, I find that both the writ petitions are required to be allowed. Accordingly, W.P. No. 3284 of 2008 and W.P. No. 40 of 2007 are allowed. The endorsements issued by respondent 3, dated 7-2-2005 and 9-8-2006 produced at Annexures-J and N respectively in W.P. No. 40 of 2007 and endorsements issued by respondent 3 dated 27-2-2006 and 12-1-2008 produced at Annexures-H and L respectively in W.P. No. 3284 of 2008 are quashed. Corporation is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, if he is found eligible in accordance with law.