JUDGMENT Heard Mr.Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. The petitioner has prayed for issuing a mandamus to the opposite parties to consider his case for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) from the date of promotion of his junior. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that admittedly the petitioner was prosecuted in case Crime No.548 of 1998, under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial court decided the matter in Special Trial No.07 of 2002 and acquitted the petitioner from the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, whereas the petitioner has been convicted under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and further under Section 13(1)D (ii) & (iii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevision of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. It is stated that the petitioner had challenged the aforesaid order before this Court through Criminal Appeal No.676 of 2014 before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge of this Court had admitted the appeal and enlarged the petitioner on bail and further also suspended the effect and operation and execution of the judgment and order of conviction till the next date of listing, which is still operating. In so far as the departmental proceeding is concerned, in the said departmental proceeding the petitioner was awarded 'censure' entry vide order dated 2.6.2009. Aggrieved petitioner had challenged the said entry before the State Public Service Tribunal through Claim Petition No.280 of 2010. The learned Tribunal had expunged the said entry vide order dated 7.7.2010. Thus at this stage the petitioner is working on the post of Executive Engineer and except the pendency of the criminal appeal before this Court, there is nothing adverse against him. The learned Tribunal had expunged the said entry vide order dated 7.7.2010. Thus at this stage the petitioner is working on the post of Executive Engineer and except the pendency of the criminal appeal before this Court, there is nothing adverse against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in paragraph 10 of the Government Order dated 28 May 1997 the procedure of promotion of the employees against whom the departmental/criminal proceedings are pending since long has been provided and it has been stated that such an employee can be considered for promotion but only on ad hoc basis. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we are of the view that at this stage the petitioner's case of promotion can be considered only on ad hoc basis. Therefore, we feel it appropriate to dispose of the matter with liberty to the petitioner to move a representation to the competent authority. On being moved the said representation the competent authority shall consider the petitioner's promotion to the next higher post within one month, which shall be purely on ad hoc in nature either till pendency of the aforesaid criminal appeal or till further order of this court passed in the criminal appeal, whichever is earlier. In the aforesaid terms the writ petition stands disposed of finally.