$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8212/2018, CM APPL. 13924/2023 KALYAN SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Appearance not given.

versus LD. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, HQ DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC for GNCTD Services with Mr. N.K.

Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 16.02.2026

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution questions only the effective date of the Petitioner’s promotion to the post of Judicial Assistant (Group ‘C’, Non-Gazetted). The Petitioner does not dispute that promotion has been granted. The dispute is about whether the notional promotion could, or should, be antedated to 18^th December, 2008 (the date on which the Petitioner claims eligibility matured), instead of 1^st July, 2012 (the date from which the promotion order extends effect).

Facts

2. The Petitioner joined the Respondent establishment on 18^th December, 2003 as Junior Judicial Assistant. As per the Petitioner, the next promotion to Judicial Assistant became due on completion of the prescribed residency period, and therefore fell due on 18^th December, 2008.

3. Promotion in the cadre must be seen against the backdrop of restructuring instructions issued by the Government of India. An Office Memorandum dated 16^th October, 1979 restructured the LDC and UDC posts in a 40:60 ratio with effect from 1^st October, 1979. That ratio was later modified to 50:50 with effect from 1^st April, 1994 by Office Memorandum dated 20^th March, 1994. A judgment of this Court dated 22^nd March, 2010 in W.P.(C) No. 907/1996 directed the concerned authorities to sanction and implement the upgradation of posts in terms of the said memoranda.

4. Pursuant to the above directions, a Selection Committee was constituted. A promotion order dated 23^rd August, 2017 was issued, in which the Petitioner’s name appeared (serial no. 284) and the promotion was made effective from 1^st July, 2012.

5. The controversy turns materially on disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner. A memorandum dated 19^th August, 2006 was issued to him relating to issuance of bailable warrants in a matter where he was discharging the function of ‘Alhmad’. The proceedings culminated in an order dated 23^rd October, 2009 imposing the minor penalty of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect. As a result, the Petitioner did not receive the increments that fell due on 1^st July, 2010 and 1^st July, 2011. Later, on 1^st July, 2012, the Petitioner received three increments, including restoration of the two withheld increments.

6. The Respondent contend that the effective date of promotion must necessarily follow the expiry of the penalty’s operative period. According to them, although the penalty was minor in nature, its consequences continued until 1^st July, 2012, when the withheld increments stood restored. The Petitioner, therefore, could not have been granted promotion with effect from 18^th December, 2008 so long as the penalty remained in currency. The Petitioner disputes this position.

Petitioner’s submissions

7. Counsel for the Petitioner makes the following submissions in support of the reliefs sought:

7.1. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Respondent have erroneously fixed the effective date to 1^st July, 2012, although the Petitioner had completed the qualifying service much earlier and, on the Respondent’ own case, the promotion flowed from a cadre restructuring exercise which stood judicially mandated.

7.2. As regards the Respondent’ justification founded on the imposition of penalty, it is argued that the penalty was “withholding of two increments without cumulative effect”. The punishment, by its own description, was confined to increments. It did not contain any direction withholding promotion, nor could a collateral “promotion embargo” be read into it when the disciplinary authority did not impose such a consequence.

7.3. A minor penalty does not, by its