(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

We have heard Mr. B. Deka, learned Central Government Counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. Sarma, learned Advocate for the sole respondent.

The Union of India/appellant has questioned the judgment dated 28.05.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.8036/2017 (Pawan Kumar Tiwari -Vs- Union of India & 11 Ors.), whereby it has been directed that the respondent herein be given promotion and consequent benefit of seniority with effect from the date he was recommended by the DPC, i.e. 22.06.2015 instead of 01.01.2016, which is the date on which the currency of the punishment imposed against the respondent in a departmental proceeding ended.

The respondent was subjected to a departmental proceeding and on the basis of the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer, he was saddled with the penalty of stoppage of 2(two) increments for a period of 2(two) years with the caveat that he shall be given the increments which he would earn normally within those 2(two) periods and such reduction will not have any postponing effect on the future financial benefits to the respondent. This penalty was imposed on 31.12.2013.

During the currency of the afore-noted punishment imposed upon the respondent, a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held in which the case of the respondent was considered and he was found fit for promotion. The recommendation of the DPC, however, indicated that the respondent shall be promoted from the date when the currency of the punishment imposed upon him would expire.

Consequently, the respondent was promoted but from 01.01.2016 and not from 22.06.2015, the date of recommendation.

This late promotion to the respondent had obviously disturbed his seniority and, therefore, he challenged the decision of the employer in granting him promotion from 01.01.2016 before a Bench of this Court, as has already been referred to earlier.

The learned Single Judge delved into a number of facts appearing in the case of the respondent and found that he had been considered by the DPC in the past on several occasions with respect to vacancies of those respective years. In all such DPCs, the case of the respondent was considered in sealed cover. On 18.09.2014, the respondent was again considered for promotion and was found unfit. However, for the vacancies arising in the year 2015-16, another DPC was convened on 22.06.2015, wherein also the consideration with respect to the respondent was made under sealed cover for the reason of the respondent having been put to a punishment of reduction of pay for 2(two) stages for 2(two) years and the currency of such punishment still subsisting.

However, the DPC, on 22.06.2015, declared the respondent to be fit for promotion for the vacancy of the year 2015-16 but, as noted above, clearly recommended that the respondent shall be given the benefit of promotion after the currency of the punishment. The currency of the punishment ended on 31.12.2015 and consequently the respondent was promoted to the rank of Commandant with effect from 01.01.2016.

The learned Single Judge, appears to have relied on a Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum dated 10.10.1962, wherein it was stipulated that where reduction is for a specified period and is not to operate for the purposes of postponing future increment, seniority of the Government servant may, unless the terms of the order of punishment provide otherwise, be fixed in the higher service, grade or post or the higher time scale at what it would have been but for the reduction in the pay scale.

Reading this as a rider, the learned Single Judge opined that in case of minor punishment with clear stipulation that the punishment will not have any postponing effect on future financial benefits, the respondent was required to be restored his seniority by promoting him from the date of the DPC clearance.

With utmost re