ORDER : Pulla Karthik, J. Since the subject matter of both these cases is inter-connected, they are heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. W.P.No.30062 of 2024 is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 in overlooking the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Head Nurse/Senior Nursing Officer on the alleged ground of initiation of disciplinary proceedings as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 16, and contrary to Rule 5(b)(i) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, and consequently, to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Head Nurse/Senior Nursing Officer in Multi Zone-I from the date of inclusion of the names of Nursing Officers in proceedings dated 13.03.2024 or any other subsequent date in pursuance of proceedings dated 16.10.2024. 3. C.C.No.2608 of 2024 is filed seeking to punish the contemnor for his/her willful and deliberate violation of the interim order dated 29.10.2024 passed in W.P.No.30062 of 2024. 4. Heard Sri K. Ram Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of the respondents/contemnor in the contempt case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Staff Nurse/Nursing Officer in November, 1998, and she has been discharging her services as such, without any complaints whatsoever. While so, since the petitioner being senior among the other Staff Nurses, her service particulars were called for during December, 2023. Thereafter, a list of Nursing Officers in Zone- I, eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Nursing Officer was prepared, wherein, the petitioner’s name was shown at Sl.No.4, and promotion counseling was scheduled vide proceedings dated 13.03.2024. However, the petitioner’s name was not included in the annexure therein, and she was overlooked on the sole alleged ground of contemplation of initiation of disciplinary proceedings for her alleged unauthorized absence, but as on the said date, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Hence, the respondents ought to have considered her case for promotion, in terms of seniority and eligibility, and such inaction is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of statutory Rules, especially Rule 5(i)(b) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. 6. Hence, the respondents ought to have considered her case for promotion, in terms of seniority and eligibility, and such inaction is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of statutory Rules, especially Rule 5(i)(b) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioner was subsequently issued with a charge memo dated 29.04.2024, alleging a single charge that she had absconded from duties unauthorizedly from 11.11.2018 to 31.12.2021 and 13.01.2022 to 30.08.2022, without prior sanction from higher authorities. However, the petitioner submitted her detailed explanation on 05.07.2024, denying the charge, which has not been taken into consideration so far. It is submitted that respondent No.2 issued proceedings dated 16.10.2024, proposing to effect promotions to the post of Senior Nursing Officer, and the petitioner’s name was shown at Sl.No.4 in the annexure therein. However, the respondents are deferring her case for promotion on the mere ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings, initiated subsequent to inclusion of her name in the proceedings dated 18.12.2023. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to pass necessary orders in the present writ petition. 7. While ordering Notice before Admission, this Court granted an interim order dated 29.10.2024, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Head Nurse/Senior Nursing Officer in the ensuing promotions during November, 2024, strictly in accordance with Rule 5(b)(i) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. 8. On the other hand, a vacate stay petition, seeking vacation of the aforesaid interim order, was filed by the respondents along with a counter affidavit, and the learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings vide charge memo dated 29.04.2024, for her unauthorized absence from duty, from 11.11.2018 to 31.12.2021 and 13.01.2022 to 30.08.2022, without prior sanction from the higher authorities, thereby, exhibiting gross dereliction of her duties. As such, the respondents are justified in excluding the petitioner from consideration for promotion till the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, and thus, there is no violation of any Rule as alleged by the petitioner. It is further submitted that mere invitation of service particulars does not confer a vested right upon an employee for securing further promotion. As such, the respondents are justified in excluding the petitioner from consideration for promotion till the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, and thus, there is no violation of any Rule as alleged by the petitioner. It is further submitted that mere invitation of service particulars does not confer a vested right upon an employee for securing further promotion. As such, since the charge framed against the petitioner is serious in nature, warranting necessary action as per the instructions contained in G.O.Ms.No.260 dated 04.09.2023, the petitioner is not entitled for promotion. It is submitted that in compliance with the interim order of this Court dated 29.10.2024, a speaking order vide proceedings dated 22.11.2024, has also been passed stating that her case cannot be considered until the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 9. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents issued proceedings dated 25.11.2024, for effecting promotions of as many as (40) Staff Nurses in Multi Zone-I, ignoring the case of the petitioner, in spite of the fact that she is not under the currency of any punishment. It is submitted that mere initiation of disciplinary proceedings, subsequent to inclusion of her name in the eligibility list dated 18.12.2023, and not considering her case for promotion, on the sole of pendency of such disciplinary proceedings, is wholly unjustifiable, illegal and arbitrary. It is also submitted that the petitioner, being fully qualified and eligible, is being deprived of her rightful promotion, while promoting her juniors, which is not only discriminatory but also a gross violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it is once again prayed to pass necessary orders in the present writ petition. 10. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record. 11. Admittedly, while the petitioner was working as a Staff Nurse, her name was included in the list annexed to proceedings in Rc.No.1432/ND-A/2023 dated 18.12.2023, whereby, it was proposed to effect promotions to the post of Senior Nursing Officer. Thereafter, her name was also enlisted at Sl.No.4, in the annexure to proceedings in Rc.No.1432/ND-A/2023 dated 16.10.2024. 11. Admittedly, while the petitioner was working as a Staff Nurse, her name was included in the list annexed to proceedings in Rc.No.1432/ND-A/2023 dated 18.12.2023, whereby, it was proposed to effect promotions to the post of Senior Nursing Officer. Thereafter, her name was also enlisted at Sl.No.4, in the annexure to proceedings in Rc.No.1432/ND-A/2023 dated 16.10.2024. However, in the proceedings dated 25.11.2024, her name was not included and the respondents are not considering her case for promotion, on the sole ground of pendency of disciplinary proceeding initiated vide Charge Memo in Rc.No.5502/VC-I-A/2024 dated 29.04.2024. 12. For better appreciation of the case on hand, it is relevant to refer to Rule 5(b)(i) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, which is extracted hereunder: “5. SELECTION POSTS:- (b) Non-selection posts:- No Non-Gazetted post should be treated as selection post. Promotion and appointment by transfer to higher posts other than those mentioned in sub- rule (a) shall be made in accordance with seniority-cum-fitness, unless,— (i) such promotion or appointment by transfer of a member has been withheld as a penalty; or” 13. It is pertinent to note that the post of Senior Nursing Officer is a non-selection post, and thus, in view of the above Rule position, it is clear that a promotion to the said post shall be effected strictly in terms of seniority and eligibility, unless it has been withheld as a penalty. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the petitioner has never been inflicted with such a punishment, and the only stand taken by the respondents for denial of promotion is the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in New Bank of India v. N.P. Sehgal and another , [ 1991 SCR (1 ) 473] , has categorically held that the mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings pending departmental enquiry is not an absolute bar on for promotion of a Government employee, and that a punishment, if warranted, can be imposed even in the promoted post. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the respondents are not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Nursing Officer, on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. 14. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the respondents are not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Nursing Officer, on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. 14. In identical circumstances, this Court allowed W.P.No.21769 of 2021, vide order dated 13.03.2024, directing the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner therein and pass appropriate orders for his promotion, on par with his immediate junior, and the said order was also confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 29.08.2024 in W.A.No.1010 of 2024, which has attained finality. 15. In the light of the above made discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for promotion as Senior Nursing Officer on par with the candidates promoted in pursuance of proceedings dated 25.11.2024. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Nursing Officer/Head Nurse on par with the candidates promoted in pursuance of proceedings dated 25.11.2024. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits in view of her notional promotion. 17. In view of the above, the Contempt Case is closed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.