Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard Shri Pradeep Sharma for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.
Petitioner is aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 3.4.2001 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal in Claim Petition No.194/T/5/91 by which the claim petition against the orders denying promotion of Sales Tax Officer Grade-I and other notional promotion and seniority was dismissed on the ground that petitioner did not fulfill the criteria of promotion under Rule 5((I) (b) (2) of U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1983 as he was not confirmed on the post of Sales Tax Officer. The petitioner was given adverse entries in the years 1981-82 and 1982-83. He was also awarded censure entry on 21.7.1986. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that confirmation was held up because of adverse entry. The adverse entry for the period 1980-81 was expunged by the Tribunal by judgment and order dated 20th January, 1990 and the adverse entry for the year 1981-82 was deleted vide order of the Tribunal dated 4.6.1992. The censure entry was expunged by the department. He submits that as a consequence of the deletion of adverse entries and the censure entry the department was required to reconsider the petitioner for conformation and thereafter consequential benefits as there was no adverse material against the petitioner.
We do not find any reference of these judgments and orders in the impugned judgment. It is stated by the petitioner that claim petition was filed in the year 1991 and that the judgments were rendered by the Tribunal subsequently. In the rejoinder affidavit, he had stated that entries were expunged and had annexed the judgments as Annexure A-1 and 2 of the rejoinder affidavit in the Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in 1998 SCC (L& S) 1733 : U.P. Jal Nigam Vs. S.C.Atri and another ; 2006 SCC ( L& S) 1976 : Gopi Chand Vishnoi Vs. State of U.P. and another and 2000 (2) LBESR 859 (SC) : Brij Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others. He submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that when adverse entries are expunged, petitioner should be given consequential benefits, which shall not be deprived to him on account of such entries.
The petitioner did not amend the claim petition. It was open to the petitioner to amend the claim petition and to allow the respondent to reply to the :2: amendment made and effect of the judgment and expunction of the censure entry and confirmation of the subsequent promotion.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned judgment of the Tribunal is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to consider afresh in accordance with law and dispose of the claim petition, expeditiously, if possible within a period of four months. 11.1.2010.
Tripathi.