1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 30-5-1984 by which petitioner's appeal was dismissed and his prayer that the seniority list showing him "as junior to respondents 2 to 7 be stuck down" was rejected. The main reasons which prevailed with the Tribunal in rejecting petitioner's claim may usefully be stated by reproducing the relevant portion of the impugned judgment. It reads: "While examining the case of other to contesting respondents (Nos.2 and 6 of E and M Wing) we find that it is established on the record that they were promoted in the year 1966 in a prescribed manner on the recommendations of the Public Service Commission by the Government of Punjab.
2. The appellant, according to the record of this case, was promoted in the year 1974, in Marketing Wing, where he has been working since the rejection of his appeal in the year 1971. If the appellant had any grievance against the promotion of the said contesting respondents, he was within his rights to agitate the same before the proper forum at the relevant the. His claim that he has been exonerated by the Hon'ble High Court, therefore he should be considered senior to the contesting respondents, cannot be adjudicated by us as we are not permitted to do so under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974".
3. Learned counsel appearing in support of the petition referred to the instructions issued by the Government under S 6 G A Department letter No.SO-XII (S & G A D)-2-145/60, dated 4-12-1962 that if a Government servant would have been otherwise promoted but for suspension, then after honourable acquittal he can be given pro forma promotion retrospectively against a vacancy which occurred during his suspension. Reference to these instructions was made by the learned counsel in support of the submission that at the relevant the petitioner was under suspension and he should have been granted the benefit of promotion after his honourable acquittal in certain cases.
4. Learned counsel was however unable to refer to any document on record that petitioner would have but for the suspension been duly promoted at the the when respondents 3 to 7 were actually promoted.No exception can therefore be taken against the impugned order of the, Tribunal.
5. The petition is dismissed.