JUDGMENT :

Amrita Sinha, J.

1. In the present writ petition the petitioner seeks for a direction upon the authority of Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, ‘the Institute’ for short, to accept the recommendation made for promotion in his favour by the Departmental Promotion Committee, ‘DPC’ for short, with further direction to release all consequential benefits including pension, gratuity and leave encashment.

2. The petitioner was serving the Institute. He retired from service on attaining his normal age of superannuation on 30th June, 2010. Prior to retirement the petitioner was considered for promotion from the post of Associate Professor grade E to the post of Professor grade F, but before the promotion being finalized, the petitioner got superannuated.

3. When the petitioner was in service disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. The said proceeding continued well after his retirement. The petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition which concluded by the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 29th June 2017. While disposing of the appeal the Hon’ble Division Bench directed the authority to drop the disciplinary proceeding which was initiated against the petitioner through the charge sheet dated 30th August 2005 and to grant admissible service benefits denied to the petitioner pursuant to the order of punishment dated 16th June 2011. The Division Bench was pleased to direct that in the event the Governing Council grants promotion to the petitioner, all arrears of salary arising therefrom shall be paid to him.

4. As promotion was not accorded to the petitioner, he filed an application for contempt alleging non-compliance of the direction passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench which stood disposed of on 21st June 2019. In the contempt application the petitioner pressed for promotion. The Hon’ble Court was pleased to observe that there was no categoric direction upon the authority to grant promotion to the petitioner. The Court took note of the fact that the authority rejected the prayer of the petitioner seeking promotion on the ground of poor performance. The Court observed that the decision not to recommend the petitioner for promotion gives rise to a fresh cause of action and the delay in convening the meeting of the Governing Council does not appear to be deliberate. The contempt application stood disposed of by observing that dismissal of the contempt application shall not prevent the petitioner from challenging the order passed by the authority denying promotion to him before the appropriate forum.

5. The instant writ petition is primarily directed against the denial of promotion to the petitioner by the Institute.

6. The minutes of the meeting of the Governing Council of the Institute held on 3rd August 2018 clearly records the reasons for denying promotion to the petitioner. The Governing Council noticed that the name of the petitioner was considered for promotion by the DPC on earlier two occasions. The petitioner was serving as Associate Professor grade E when he was charge sheeted on 30th August 2005. After his retirement the disciplinary proceeding ended on 16th July 2011 imposing penalty. The recommendation of the DPC to promote the petitioner to the next higher post was kept in a sealed envelope.

7. The penalty was challenged by the petitioner before this Court. In compliance of the direction passed by the Court the Institute dropped the disciplinary proceeding and paid the admissible dues of the petitioner.

8. The issue of promotion was deliberated once again where the authority opined that promotion in the Institute is merit-based, assessed through academic and scientific achievements and progress and the same is not time bound. The academic sub-committee of the Governing Council examined the self assessment report of the petitioner and the earlier reports of the screening committee and found that the petitioner had not made any significant academic contributions since his last promotion in