Reinstatement after dismissal from service entitles the person to all benefits of the previous position, but promotion is not a matter of right and requires fulfillment of specific criteria.

S.K. Dubey, J.

1. In this petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution the petitioner makes a prayer to punish the non-petitioners for not complying the order of this Court dated July 23, 1996 passed in Misc. Petition No. 1101/90 and to direct the non-petitioners to promote the petitioner to the cadre of Subedar and to pay interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum on the amount due on account of pay and allowances and also Rs. 1 lac as compensation for not reinstating the petitioner in service.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition are thus: Petitioner was a Havaldar No. 776624 in 8th Infantry Brigade, who was served with a charge sheet on March 9, 1989. In Summary Court Martial held under Section 116 of the Army Act, 1950 the petitioner was found guilty and was dismissed from service. However, the Brigade Commander of the Unit under Section 162 of the Army Act converted the sentence of dismissal into one of discharge. The petitioner challenged the order by a petition- M.P.No. 1109/90. The order of discharge and also the order passed by Summary Court Martial was set aside and the petitioner was ordered to be entitled to reinstatement and all consequential benefits. However, the petitioner was not reinstated as having completed 24 years of service on July 7, 1994. His case for payment of pay and allowances from March 10, 1989 to July 24, 1994 and revised pensionary benefit was sent to Record Office for payment treating the petitioner in service till the date of his retirement.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his case was bound to be considered for promotion and if promoted he would have served till 1998. He would have cleared the promotion Cadre Criteria if he would have been in service. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied his right for consideration of his case for promotion to the higher rank. Therefore, the non-petitioners are guilty of contempt. Counsel relied on Lt. Colonel K.D. Gupta v. Union of India and Ors. (1989-II-LLJ-143) (SC) Raghunandan Prasad Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. 1984 MPU 422 and an unreported decision of this Court in M.C.C.No. 452/1993 decided on February 3, 1994 arising out of M.P. No. 3384/92 decided on April 29, 1993 (Shivanand Prasad v. Chief of Army Staff and Ors.),

4. In reply to the contempt petition, it is stated that no time limit was fixed for compliance of the order. However as the petitioner completed 24 years of service the petitioner's case for payment of back pay and the consequential benefits upto the date of retirement, that is with effect from March 10, 1989 till July 31, 1994 and the pensionary benefits for completing 24 years of service as per para. 164 of the Regulations for the Army, 1987 (Revised Edition) was considered treating the petitioner as reinstated for grant of arrears of allowances amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- less the amount of A.G. recovery from July 18, 1994 and was forwarded vide CMP Records Part-II order No. 1/227/000796 to CDA (UR) Bangalore vide CMP Records Letter No. 7766267/74/ NE(S.Pan)dated December 21, 1996 for audit and onward submission to the Govt of India which is pending and will be cleared very soon. As to the grievance of the petitioner for promotion from Havaldar to Naib Subedar it was stated that the petitioner for the criteria of promotion i.e. A. ACR Criteria B. Medical Criteria C. Discipline Criteria D. Promotion Criteria did not fulfill the criteria 'D' that is Promotion Carde Criteria, hence, his case for promotion could not be considered.

5. Smt. Indira Nair learned counsel for the non-petitioners submitted that writ Court directed reinstatement and for consequential benefits and not for promotion. Consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion does not come within the term consequential benefits. Petitioner cannot claim promotion as of right but can claim his right to be considered but as he did not fulfill the criteria for