1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 8920 of 2008 Date of decision: 21.12.2010 ________________________________________________________________ Himachal Pradesh Rajkiya Padonnat Prashikshit Santak Adhyapak Sangh and others .....Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide paras 7(1) and (2): “(1). that the impugned order dated 12.9.2002, Annexure A-9 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (2). That the respondent department may be directed to consider the claim of members of applicant Association for promotion to the post of Trained Graduate Teachers against 25% quota meant for JBT/C&v Teachers from due dates, with all consequential benefits.” 2. In reply the respondents have taken the following stand vide para-3: 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 “The members of the applicants association joined in the cadre of Trained Graduate Teachers much after the issuance of tentative seniority list of Trained Graduate Teachers issued in 1992. The case of the applicant is that when the seniority list was circulated in 1999, after joining of the members of applicant association as Trained Graduate Teachers, they learnt that the respondent department had not given to them their share in promotion quota, hence their association took up the matter with the authorities. In this background it is not correct on the part of respondent department to assert that they did not represent against the tentative seniority list circulated in 1992. Since in 1992 the members of applicant association were not holding the posts in the cadre of Trained Graduate Teacher, therefore, the said list was never circulated to them and as such there was no question of their making any representation against the said seniority list. Therefore, the Original Application is maintainable and the rejection of the claim of applicant vide Annexure A-9 is not legally sustainable.” 3. The petitioner herein is “Himachal Pradesh Rajkiya Padonnat Prashikshit Sanatak Adhyapaqk Sangh”. Its President is Shri Dharam Singh Thakur. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are General Secretary and Cashier of the petitioner-union. A list of members of the petitioner-union has been annexed with the petition as Annexure-1. 4. Admittedly most of the members of the petitioner-union have since retired from Government service. 5. The grievance raised by the petitioner-union is that its members were working as JBT/C&V teachers in the respondent 3 department. While in service they improved their educational qualification and acquired B.Ed. Degree. Thus, as per 25 % quota meant for JBT/C&V teachers for promotion as Trained Graduate Teacher ( TGT), members of the petitioner-union were entitled for such promotion in accordance with the aforesaid quota from time to time. However, the Quota Rule was not implemented by the respondents department at the right time and as a consequence their promotions were delayed. 6. Against the above backdrop, the petitioner-union filed OA No.335 of 2002 before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal which was ordered to be treated as a representation, which ultimately came to be rejected vide order dated 12.9.2002, Annexure-A9, operative part whereof is extracted below: “Whereas the Department has promoted the members of the applicant Association from the lower posts of JBT/C&V to the post of TGTs under 25% quota on different dates, subsequent to the dates of their acquiring B.Ed. Degrees. Whereas the Applicant Association has demanded the benefit of their promotion to the post of TGTs from the due dates i.e. the date of acquiring B.Ed. Degree with all consequential benefits instead of the dates they have been promoted by the Department. Whereas the Department had issued tentative Seniority list of TGTs for the period from 1-1-87 to 30-6-92 inviting commissions and commissions therein on 21.7.1992 inviting commissions and commissions therein on 21.7.1992. Whereas the category concerned i.e. JBT/C&V did not care to make available the list 4 of eligible candidates for promotion nor any representation for the purpose was ever received till 28.3.1997. Whereas nothing has ever been heard from the applicant Association about their Seniority till 1.3.1997, the date on which final Seniority list was circulated upto 30.6.1992. Whereas the Department has issued the final Seniority list of TGTs as it stood on 30.6.92 on 1.3.97. And whereas the final position assigned to changed in any case, as per the decision of the Govt. Therefore, the claim of the members of the Applicant Association (Junior Teachers and C&V teachers promoted as TGTs) against 25% quota for seniority and consequential benefits from the due dates after 1987, is neither justified nor it is tenable at this belated stage when the Seniority list of TGTs upto 1992 has been finalised. Hence, the request of HP Rajkiya Padonnat Adhiapak Sangh, received through their President Shri Dharam Singh is rejected.” 7. Though the claim set up by the petitioner-union has not been disputed by the respondents on merits, yet the same has been rejected mainly on the ground of delay and latches. However, it is by now settled that it is the duty of the Court to do substantial justice between the parties and not to throw out genuine and justified claims only on the ground of delay and latches and more so, when it was incumbent upon the respondents to apply the aforesaid quota in favour of the members of the petitioner-union in its right perspective and also at the right time. However, since it was not done, in dereliction of the duty cast upon the respondents department under the Rules, it cannot raise the plea of delay and 5 latches. 8. In view of the above, the petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider the case of the members of the petitioner-union for promotion to the post of TGT against 25% quota for JBT/C&V teachers from the due dates in accordance with law and justice, within three months from production of copy of this judgment by the President of the petitioner-union. However, it is made clear that since all the members of the petitioner-union were lateron promoted as Trained Graduate Teacher, though from later dates than due and most of them have since retired from government service, they shall not be entitled for any arrears prior to the period they were actually promoted and instead those members of the petitioner-union who have since retired from service shall get the benefit of promotion under this judgment only notionally, but shall be entitled for payment of enhanced retiral benefits, as if they were actually promoted from the due dates. In so far as those members of the petitioner-union who are still in service are concerned, the benefit of this judgment shall accrue to them prospectively i.e. from the date of this judgment. 9. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 21st December, 2010 (Jai)