CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench(2000) 09 SC CK 0145

Aryendra Nath Gupta vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 27 September 2000 · Citation: (2001) 3 AWC 175 : (2000) 2 JT 446 Supp

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shivaraj V. Patil, J · S. Rajendra Babu, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No. 5520 of 2000

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 323 words

S. Rajendra Babu and Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.—Leave granted.

2.

The Appellant before, us is employed In the Telecom Department. When he was working at Shillong In the year 1994, he had been placed under suspension In view of a criminal prosecution initiated against him. Thereafter it is stated that the order of suspension stood revoked unconditionally. However, in the meantime, the Departmental Promotion Committee took up the matter of promotion from Assistant Engineer to Surveyor of Works/Executive Engineer and that promotion was not given to him as he was under suspension. The Appellant challenged the action of the respondents, in a proceeding before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati. The Administrative Tribunal gave the relief to the Appellant to the extent that after revocation of his suspension, he was entitled to promotion inasmuch as his case should be considered and he was promoted accordingly, but did not state anything about the period for which he was actually under suspension. The Appellant carried the matter unsuccessfully to the High Court.

3.

The grievance of the Appellant before us is that his suspension having been revoked unconditionally, it could not be said that he was not entitled to promotion during the period he was actually under suspension and that aspect should have been examined by the concerned authority. In the circumstances, we find great force in the submission made on behalf of the appellant. Inasmuch as the order of suspension having been revoked unconditionally, his case for promotion as Surveyor of Works/Executive Engineer should have been considered for that period also. If the order of suspension had no effect upon his service, due promotion should be given to him by taking note of this fact. Hence, we direct the respondents to consider the case of the Appellant as aforesaid in accordance with the Rules and make appropriate adjustments, if necessary, in the promoted cadre within a period of three months. The appeal is allowed accordingly.