S.S.Sandhawalia, C.J. - (1.) Whether the writ. Court is empowered to limit the scope of the lis in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to one or more specific grounds only, at the threshold stage of its admission is the significant question which necessitated this. reference to the Division Bench.
(2.) N. C. Mahendra petitioner was working. as an Executive Engineer under the Haryana State Electricity Board when, on 4th November, 1974; he was placed, under suspension in view of the departmental proceedings a against him. A charge-sheet was duly served on him on the l3th January; 1975 and after the completion of the enquiry; that followed, he was. served with a show cause notice as to why his three increments be not stopped with cumulative effect. On 11th July; 1977 he submitted a reply thereto, As averred by him, no punishment was inflicted on him and later he was promoted to the post of the Superintending Engineer vide order, Annexure P: 2, dated the l3th of September, l977. He was to remain on probation for a period of one year therefrom.
(3.) Later on the 2nd Dec., 1977, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation annexure P. B, to the respondent authorities claiming that he should be promoted with. retrospective effect from a back date when persons junior to him were promoted and as a consequential relief his seniority vis-a-vis his colleagues. be altered accordingly and the benefits regarding pay and allowances again with retrospective effect he given to him. According to the petitioner, the date from which he claimed at1 these benefits retrospectively worked to he the l6th May, 1974. In reply to this representation he was informed by respondent No. 1 vide annexure P. 9 dated the 7th July, 1978 that his claim for pay and allowances with retrospective effect was ill-founded as he had not worked during that Period. in the promoted rank. However his request for promotion with retrospective effect and seniority were kept under consideration. It would appear that. the petitioner's case was duly considered by the Haryana State Electricity Board at its meeting on the 9th September, 1977 which resolved as under:- "His having been ignored from promotion for the last three years, was enough of a penalty to meet the ends of justice. It was decided that subject to above observations, the case against Shri Mahendra may be closed and that the proceedings so far taken against him should not stand in the way of his promotion on the next occasion". In accordance with the aforesaid Board's decision, the Petitioner was informed vide Annexure P-l0 dated the 3lst of August, 1978 that. the question of allowing any benefit whatsoever with retrospective: effect did not arise and his representation dated the 2nd December, 1977 was rejected in tote.;