- (1.) Petitioner was appointed as a Research Assistant in October, 1970 on regular basis who was redesignated as Assistant Scientist w.e.f. 1.1.1973. On the recommendations University Grant Commission, Government of India circulated a merit/personal Premier Scheme for teachers service in the Universities Colleges. Under the personal promotion scheme, a teacher on completion of ten years service was entitled to be placed in the next higher promotional scale. Under the aforesaid scheme, it was not necessary that a vacancy in the promotional cadre should have been available. It was a case of upgradation of a teacher from the lower pay scale to the higher promotional pay scale while occupying the same post and performing the same duties. Assessment of a teacher for promotion under the scheme was to be made very year in the month of June on completion of the qualifying service and the promotion was to be made on the principle of seniority-cum-merit.
(2.) Under the scheme, according to the petitioner, he became entitled to be promoted in the year 1984 (according to the respondents in the year 1985) which was denied to him on the ground that on an enquiry held on certain charges, a notice to show cause notice as to who the petitioner be not removed from service had been issued. On the basis of the enquiry held, four annual increments with cumulative effect were ordered to be withheld by way of punishment. Petitioner challenged the imposition of the punishment of stoppage of four annual increments with cumulative effect by filling civil suit in Civil Court at Hissar. Petitioner's suit succeeded and the punishment awarded was set aside on merits and the University was ordered to restore the four increments and to release the consequential arrears in favour of the petitioner (copy of judgment Annexure P2). This order was upheld by the first appellate Court as well as this Court in second appeal. The judgment Annexure P 2 thus became final between the parties.
(3.) After the finalisation of the suit, since the promotion of the petitioner under the personal promotion scheme was withheld due to stoppage of four increments, he filed a representation to the respondent University to grant him personal promotion with effect from the due date i.e. 1984 in view of the judgment passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction. No action was taken thereafter. Petitioner filed two more representations copies of which have been attached with this writ petition. Finally, the case of the petitioner for personal promotion was put up vide Agenda Item No. B-17 before the Board of Management in its 146th meeting held on 20.12.1992. According to the agenda item petitioner was to be considered for personal promotion w.e.f. 1.1.1985. Another fact mentioned in the agenda was that petitioner had been awarded the punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect in September 1978 in addition to recovery of Rs. 37/-. This punishment had been awarded to the petitioner on account of certain irregularities having committee for purchasing of farm yard menure and also for claiming house rent allowance for two months by producing bogus rent receipts. In the petitioner, petitioner has stated that the order passed in September 1978 awarding the punishment and the recovery of Rs. 37/- was not challenged by him. It has further been stated that the order of imposition of the punishment was had as the Inquiry Officer had exonerated him. A copy of report of the enquiry officer has been attached as Annexure P. 6. The management in the meeting held on the agenda regarding the petitioner decided to grant approval for promotion of the petitioner under the scheme with effect from the date of decision of the Board of Management i.e. 29.12.1992. Petitioner being aggrieved has challenged this decision of the University granting him promotion under the scheme w.e.f. 29.12.1992 instead of the date on which he had become entitled to the said promotion. Petitioner has challenged the said order on the ground that the order of punishment Annexure P 7 could not be taken into consideration while granting promotional benefits as the same had nothing to do with the teaching functions of the petitioners and that petitioner had been denied the promotion from due date for arbitrary and mala fide decisions. Another argument raised as that at the most petitioner could be denied promotion for a period of ten years w.ei. the date of the order of punishment as under the said scheme the work of a candidate is to be assessed for a period of ten years. The action of the University for giving promotion to the petitioner after a period of 14 years from the date of awarding of punishment was arbitrary.;