JUDGMENT

Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral) - The petitioner, through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is seeking setting order of dated 05.08.2014 (Annexure P-28) and order dated 16.03.2016 (Annexure P33) whereby petitioner has been denied promotion to the post of Quality Control Officer ('QCO'). The petitioner is further seeking setting aside of memorandum dated 29.10.2012 (Annexure P-20) whereby petitioner was granted punishment of Censure.

2. Mr. Vipin Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset, pointed out that petitioner has filed common petition with respect to two independent causes.

3. Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw his prayer with respect to setting aside of memorandum dated 29.10.2012 (Annexure P-20) with liberty to avail independent remedy as permissible by law.

The petition with respect to challenge to memorandum dated 29.10.2012 is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.

4. Respondent No.1 is a Central Government Public Sector Undertaking. The petitioner on 03.09.1990 was appointed as an Analyst which is lowest technical post in the respondent-organization. As per Rules and Regulations of the respondent, an employee, on completion of 6 years' regular service, is entitled to higher pay scale irrespective of availability of the higher post. The Stagnation Benefit Scheme (for short 'SBS') has been introduced to get rid of stagnation. The petitioner in 1996 completed 6 years, thus, he was extended benefit of first stagnation. There was another employee, namely A.K. Sinha, who was appointed as Analyst on 06.07.1990. A.K. Sinha was not extended benefit of stagnation in 1996 because he could not complete 6 years' regular service. A.K. Sinha completed regular service of 6 years in 1997, accordingly, he was extended benefit of SBS in 1997. The petitioner in 2002 completed next 6 years, thus, he was extended benefit of second SBS. It is apt to notice that petitioner was granted higher pay scale on account of stagnation, however, he was not promoted on the post of Senior Analyst. A.K. Sinha was promoted as Senior Analyst in 2003 whereas petitioner came to be promoted to the said post in 2008. The petitioner, at this stage, did not raise objection. A.K. Sinha came to be further promoted to the post of Statistical Quality Control Supervisor ('SQCS') on 03.02.2010. The respondent on 26.09.2011 advertised one post of QCO. The post was to be filled through open competition. The petitioner was not considered for the post of QCO because he was not working on the post of SQCS.

5. The petitioner preferred CWP-6287-2014 before this Court seeking direction to respondents to grant him promotion from the post of Senior Analyst to QCO. This Court vide order dated 01.04.2014 disposed of the said petition with liberty to the petitioner to move representation before respondent No.3 therein, within two weeks for the relief sought and respondent No.3 therein, was directed to decide representation of the petitioner expeditiously and preferably within 3 months from the receipt of representation. The relevant extracts of the said order read as:

'Petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondents for grant of promotion from the post of Senior Analyst to Quality Control Officer.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that with regard to relief in question, petitioner has been approaching the authorities but no action has been taken on his representations so far.

A perusal of Annexure P-24 reveals that petitioner had moved a representation qua various grievances including the relief sought by the petitioner in the present petition.

Accordingly, without adverting to the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with a direction that in case petitioner moves a representation, qua the relief sought by him, before respondent No. 3 within two weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of this order, the same will be disp