@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Ajay Kr. Tripathi, J.@mdashHeard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Vide letter No. 3/99-1135 dated 9.10.2000 contained in Annexure-4 many a persons came to be granted promotion on the posts of Assistant Settlement Officer which included persons junior to the Petitioner. Petitioner''s promotion could not issued in view of the fact that at the relevant time at least one of his A.C.R. was not complete or missing which prevented the DPC from considering his case.
3. After the promotion order the Petitioner decided to approach the Respondent authority for redressal of his grievance and the prejudice caused to him due to non-inclusion of his name for promotion.
4. Vide communication contained in Annexure-5 it seems that many a persons had been denied the benefit of promotion due to lack of their A.C. Rs. and thereafter ACRs of 11 officers were demanded which included the name of Petitioner from the concerned Respondent.
5. Now a counter affidavit has been filed in which a copy of notification dated 19.12.2006 has been annexed. The notification in question is Annexure-A. A perusal of Annexure-A would show that the Petitioner has been granted the benefit of promotion from 9.10.2000 that is the date his juniors had been given promotion. But this promotion was only notional and the benefit of the promotion would accrue to the Petitioner when he actually joins the post.
6. Learned Counsel representing the Petitioner submits that non-furnishing of the A.C.R. was the issue for not considering his case for promotion. But it is the responsibility of the Respondent authority to furnish the ACR of the Petitioner well in time when his case for promotion was taken up alongwith his juniors. For no apparent reason he came to be punished. Now he has lost out certain benefits due to non-grant of promotion between 9.10.2000 to 19.2.2006.
7. Learned Counsel for the State has nothing much to offer except the decision taken. The Court therefore has to consider whether non-grant of promotion to the Petitioner was for any laches or fault on the part of the Petitioner? It is not the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner otherwise was not entitled for consideration for promotion or that there was any impediment except non-availability of the ACR. That is the reason why now the promotion has been granted to the Petitioner from 9.10.2000. The Petitioner claims now that he should also be given the advantage of the pay scale alongwith salary for that period.
8. This Court has certain difficulty in entertaining the claim of the Petitioner for payment of salary on the promoted post from 9.10.2000 since the Petitioner never came to work on the said post before the order of promotion issued on 19.12.2006. But there is a cause which requires consideration. Whether the benefit of pay scale should be given to the Petitioner notionally from 9.10.2000 so that the prejudice caused to him by non-consideration of his case for promotion alongwith his juniors and the decision taken in the 2000 merit consideration.
9. The Court is of the opinion that the Respondents ought to consider the case of the Petitioner from the point of giving him the pay scale notionally from the date of promotion so that the prejudice caused to him from 9.10.2000 to 19.12.2006 for no apparent fault of the Petitioner can be somewhat mitigated.
10. This writ application is disposed of with a direction upon the Respondents to do the needful in the matter preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt or communication of a copy of this order.
