R.S. Mongia, J. - (1.)A preliminary enquiry against the petitioner was initiated by the Vigilance Department in the year 1985 for the alleged acts of commission/omission while the petitioner was working as Executive Engineer in the year 1978. He was due for promotion as Superintending Engineer w.e.f. Nov. 28,1986. His case was not considered for promotion. In another enquiry, the petitioner was imposed a punishment of censure in June, 1987. This imposition of punishment was challenged by the petitioner ,n a civil suit, which was decreed in favour of the petitioner on June 15,1988. The petitioner was promoted as Superintending Engineer on Feb. 24,1989 subject to the decision in the appeal filed by the respondent - State against the judgment in the civil suit. However, he State's appeal was dismissed and so was the regular second appeal, viz. RSA No. 861 of 1995, filed by the State in this Court. Vide order at Annexure P.3, dated June 16,1997. Vigilance preliminary enquiry against the petitioner was closed; meaning thereby that nothing was found against the petitioner. Petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on Sept. 30,1993. This writ petition was filed that the petitioner should be promoted with effect from the due dates as Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer when his junior was so promoted with all consequential benefits. It may be observed here that the gratuity was not released to the petitioner probably on the ground that the vigilance enquiry was pending against the petitioner, which has been released on Nov. 19,1997 after the filing of the writ petition. Notice of motion was issued. Reply has been filed.
(2.)During the pendency of the writ petition, an order dated Nov. 27,1997 has been passed by the State Government giving notional promotions to the petitioner as Superintending Engineer from Nov. 28, 1986 and as Chief Engineer w.e.f. July 22,1993 till his date of superannuation. A photostat copy of the order in vernacular has been placed on record. This order mentions that the petitioner would not be entitled to any arrears of pay on the basis of his notional promotions as aforesaid.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that for no fault of his, the petitioner was not promoted from the due date and was deprived from physically working on the posts of Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer. There is no justification with the respondents not to pay the arrears of pay w.e.f. the date of promotion as Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer. He further submitted that after superannuation, there was no justification with the respondents to withhold the gratuity amounting to Rs. 1.00 lac, which the respondents released on Nov. 19,1997, after the filing of the writ petition. He claims that reasonable interest should be awarded on the amount of gratuity which was paid at such a belated stage, without any justification.