K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THE writ petition was filed at the time when The Petitioner claimed that he was entitled to be treated as promoted from the day when his juniors were promoted, that is, on 14.01.1985 and sought for other benefits. After the filing of the petition, The Petitioner has expired and the legal representatives have been added. The Petitioner had actually secured promotion post even during his life time, but the case survives for consideration for the monetary benefits that might accrue if The Petitioner's claim to promotions were to be reckoned from anterior date.
(2.) THE contention is that The Petitioner qualified for promotion to the Assistant Administrative Officer's post in a competitive exam and was ranked at Serial No. 3 while four other persons, namely, Durham Lal, S.R. Ahire, Prabh Das and Kesar Das, had been ranked beneath him. The result of the ranking had been released on 21.11.1984 but against The Petitioner's name, remarks had been that, the result was subject to review. The contention of The Petitioner was that there was a CBI enquiry pending at the time when the ranking was done, but the CBI enquiry and the criminal case that had been instituted came to naught when the Criminal Court found that there was no material for laying a charge against The Petitioner and consequently, discharged him from the case. As a result of the fact of discharge, The Petitioner should have been considered for promotion when such post fell vacant or shall be promoted from the day when his juniors were promoted. The promotion order had been issued to The Petitioner on 01.10.1986 to the post as Assistant Administrative Officer but his grievance is that the persons, who had been ranked below him, namely, Darshan Lal, Prabh Das and Kesar Das had been promoted on 14.01.1985. The Petitioner made a representation against the denial of promotion to him and the justification for the Respondents' action was that a criminal case had been instituted. It is also a matter of fact that he had been subsequently placed under suspension. If there was a criminal investigation against him, at best The Petitioner's case must have been only kept in a sealed cover to await the decision of the criminal case and when the promotion was on the basis the requisite qualification coupled with seniority, The Petitioner must have been promoted to the next higher post especially when he has qualified and when the post had fallen vacant. I accede to the claim of The Petitioner that neither the pendency of the criminal case nor a suspension could affect The Petitioner's chance for consideration so long as the criminal investigation led to discharge and the suspension which was interim in nature itself did not disqualify him when the ground for suspension had been removed. Consequently, The Petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion on the day when Darshal Lal and Ors. were promoted that is on 14.01.1985 to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer and other higher posts as and when they fell vacant and when he had the requisite eligibility of further promotion.
(3.) THE Petitioner shall, therefore, be treated as having been promoted on 14.01.1985 and all the consequential benefits, including the monetary benefits attendant on such promotions shall be worked out and paid with interest at 6% to the petitioners , from the respective dates when they fell due. As far as the relief of salary through the suspension period, the counsel for The Petitioner states that the same had been paid to him in the year 1990 and, therefore, that relief does not any longer survive for consideration.;