Judgment:
C.M.No.16879 of 2012 and CWP No.19439 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.M.No.16879 of 2012 and CWP No.19439 of 2012 Date of Decision : December 10, 2012 Suresh Kumar ...PETITIONER versus State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr.Vikas Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
(ORAL) C.M.No.16879 of 2012 Prayer in this application is for permission to place on record the judgment as Annexure P-14.
Prayer granted.
Annexure P-14 is taken on record.
Application stands disposed of.
CWP No.19439 of 2012 Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 19.04.2004 (Annexure P-1).order dated 14.02.2005 (Annexure P-2).order/letter dated 24.04.2007 (Annexure P-6).order dated C.M.No.16879 of 2012 and CWP No.19439 o”
2. 05.11.2007 (Annexure P-8) and order dated 23.04.2008 (Annexure P-10).vide which punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner for stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect because of which, the petitioner has been denied promotion prior to Sh.
Mahabir Singh-respondent No.5 to the post of Sub-Inspector.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector from the date his junior Sh.
Mahabir Singh-respondent No.5 was promoted.
A perusal of the impugned order dated 05.11.2007 (Annexure P-8).which is the decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner claiming deemed date of promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector from the date his junior has been promoted, would show that the petitioner was not promoted earlier because of a punishment of stoppage of one annual increment (temporary) awarded to him, which was effective at that time when his junior Sh.
Mahabir Singh-respondent No.5 was promoted as Sub-Inspector.
He contends that this order cannot sustain in the light of the fact that the punishment is a minot punishment, which cannot be an impediment for consideration for promotion to the higher post.
He has further placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.8760 of 1989 titled as Ishwar Singh versus The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range, Gurgaon and otheRs.decided on 10.05.2006, wherein it has been held that stoppage of increment with temporary effect is a minot punishment.
C.M.No.16879 of 2012 and CWP No.19439 o”
3. Counsel, on the basis of the said judgment, has submitted that the petitioner is also entitled to promotion as was granted to the petitioner in the said writ petition.
This contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.
The admitted position is that on the date his junior Sh.
Mahabir Singh-respondent No.5 was promoted to the post of Sub- Inspector, petitioner was undergoing punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect.
During the currency of the punishment, the petitioner could not have been promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector.
Although the punishment, which was imposed upon the petitioner, was a minot punishment but that would not obliterate the punishment not would it mean that the said punishment would not have any effect upon the claim of the petitioner.
The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner for asserting and claiming promotion in the case of Ishwar Singh (supra) would not be applicable to the case in hand as in the said case, the date, on which the consideration for promotion was to take effect the minot punishment, which was imposed upon him, had already been given effect to and the period, for which the punishment was to continue, has also expired.
Present is a case where the punishment was still in force when consideration for promotion to the post of Sub- Inspector took place and, therefore, the petitioner has rightly not been promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector from the date his junior C.M.No.16879 of 2012 and CWP No.19439 o”
4. was promoted.
It would not be out of way to mention here that after the period of punishment had expired, petitioner stands promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector, which is in accordance with law.
Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) December 10, 2012 JUDGE pj