- (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned or der dated 30-09-2004, passed by the District Judge, Dehradun (copy Annexure-4 to the writ petition ).
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the par ties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed by the parties. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was a Clerk in District Court, Dehradun, where he joined his duties on 17-12-1973. He was working as Ahlmad with Munsif, Dehradun in February 1980-81. 4t is alleged that the Presiding Officer for some reason got annoyed with the petitioner and made complaint against him to the District Judge, Dehradun. The District Judge, al legedly without giving opportunity of be ing properly heard to the petitioner, awarded adverse entry in the character roll of the petitioner on 16-12-1980. A representation against said entry was made to the Allahabad High Court on the administrative side. However, the petitioner continued to be victimized by the District Judge, even after transfer of the then Presiding Officer of the court of Munsif, Dehradun. Later, the petitioner was promoted from the pay scale of Rs. 200-320 to the grade to Suits Clerk (pay scale Rs. 330-385 ). Again, it appears that there had been some problem with the working of the petitioner and he was reverted back by the then District Judge on the original pay scale of Rs 200-320. The petitioner made a representation, but the same was also rejected by the Dis trict Judge. It is stated in Para 17 of the writ petition that when the petitioner was attached with Special Judicial Magis trate, Dehradun, further adverse orders were passed against him affecting his service. Thereafter, the petitioner was attached in the court of Munsif III, Dehradun. Again, it appears that there was some problem with his working and the petitioner was ultimately charge sheeted. An enquiry was held against him and finally the petitioner was re moved from the service, in the year 1984. Meanwhile, another departmental en quiry was also ordered against the peti tioner, in connection with loss of record of some 12 files, including one relating to civil revision No. 81 of 1980; Shambhoo Lal Vs. Chatar Singh. The appeal filed by the petitioner, on admin istrative side of the High Court, was dis missed on 17-04-1987 and order of re moval from service was affirmed. There after, the petitioner filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court on the ground of latches. A special appeal appears to have been filed against the order of learned Single Judge before the Allahabad High Court which was also dismissed and finally a Spe cial Leave to Appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court, on the basis of which Civil Appeal No. 4197 of 2000 was admitted by the Apex Court and the orders passed by the Allahabad High Court were set aside and matter was remanded to the Division Bench of this Court to decide the his with regard to the quantum of punishment. The Di vision Bench of this Court vide its judg ment and order dated 25-02-2004, passed in Special Appeal No. 12 of 2003, set aside the order of removal from serv ice and in its stead awarded punishment stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and a censure entry for neg ligence. While, disposing of said appeal the Division Bench of this court observed that the appellant (present petitioner) shall not be entitled to any back wages as conceded by him, he shall be back on duty in the pay scale from which he was removed, it was observed by the Division Bench of this Court that the pe titioner shall be entitled to the continuity of service for the post retrial dues and other benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that expression 'other benefits' includes all the promotions to which the petitioner could have been entitled dur ing the period when he was kept out of the job. I am unable to accept the con tention of learned counsel for the peti tioner, as the Division Bench of this Court has clearly indicated that the petitioner shall be back on duty in the pay scale from which he was removed. His conti nuity in service is to be treated for post retiral dues and other benefits. On be half of the petitioner, it is further sub mitted that expression 'other benefits' would be of no meaning if the petitioner was not given the seniority and the pro motion. This Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to seniority only in the grade in which he was working and he was reinstated. It is settled principle of law that the petitioner cannot be given seniority in the grade where he has yet not promoted.
(3.) IN the circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the im pugned order passed by the District Judge, Dehradun on 30-09-2004 and the report dated 10-09-2004 of the Additional District Judge/first Fast Track Court, Dehradun, which was considered in the matter by the District Judge before the impugned order is passed. For the reasons as discussed above, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed with the observation that the petitioner's case for his future increments and pro motions may be considered in view of his seniority in grade he is reinstated, subject to his performance in service as per the rules. However, he cannot be said to be entitled to the notional promotion during the period he remained out of job, particularly, in view of the fact that he is not exonerated of the charge even from the judicial side. .;