IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 1072 of 2005 Decided on: September 10, 2008. State of H.P. Petitioner Vs. Rattan Singh Dogra & others Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. P. K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. For the Respondents : None. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) The State has sought judicial review of the order dated 23rd December, 2004 of Learned State Administrative Tribunal, whereby an Original Application filed by respondent No. 1 Rattan Singh Dogra has been allowed and the State of H.P. has been directed to pay salary and allowances to the said respondent from the date of his notional promotion, i.e. 31st December 1997. 2. Relevant facts are like this. Appointments to the cadre of Executive Engineer in I.P.H. Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh are made by promotion from amongst Assistant Engineers. Assistant Engineers are of two categories, namely, diploma holders and degree holders. 30% posts in the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… cadre of Executive Engineers are filled by promotion of diploma holders and the remaining 70% by promotion of degree holders. Respondent Rattan Singh Dogra was a degree holder Assistant Engineer. He was senior to N. D. Vaidya, D.K. Gupta, Naveen Puri, Lekh Ram and Raj Mal, graduate Assistant Engineers and also to Madan Lal Aggarwal, a diploma holder Assistant Engineer, all respondents herein. Writ petitioner, without finalizing the seniority list, promoted Madan Lal Aggarwal respondent as Executive Engineer against the quota meant for diploma holders, w.e.f. 24th December, 1996. The above named graduate Assistant Engineers were promoted w.e.f. 2nd December, 1997 against 70% quota meant for Graduate Assistant Engineers. Respondent Rattan Singh Dogra, though senior to the above named Graduate Assistant Engineers, was not considered for promotion. He made representations, but to no avail. 3. In the year 1999, some other Assistant Engineer filed an O.A. before the Tribunal challenging the seniority list of A.Es. In that O.A. an interim order was passed staying the finalization of seniority list. That order was passed on 4th June, 1999. It was vacated on 29th November, 2000. Thereafter, seniority list was finalized and the claim of respondent Rattan Singh Dogra, who filed the O.A. before the Tribunal, was considered and he was given notional promotion from 31st December, 1997, the date from which above named Assistant Engineers, junior to him had been promoted. However, it was …3… ordered that Rattan Singh Dogra and other persons, who had been given notional promotion from back date would not be paid salary and allowances for the period they did not actually worked as Executive Engineers. Rattan Singh Dogra challenged this part of the order of promotion and claimed salary and allowances and other monetary benefits from the date of notional promotion, alleging that since the persons junior to him had got monetary benefits in the form of salary and allowances from 31st December 1997, he could not have been lawfully deprived of such benefits. Learned Tribunal allowed the O.A. and directed the present writ petitioner, i.e. the State of Himachal Pradesh to pay the arrears of salary and allowances to the applicant from the date of his notional promotion, i.e. 31.12.1997. 4. In the writ petition, it is alleged that where notional promotion is made with retrospective effect and the reason for delay in promotion is beyond the control of the appointing authority, pay and allowance are permissible only from the date of actual assumption of charge of the post to which the person is promoted and not for the period of notional promotion. It is stated that in the present case, finalization of seniority list having been stayed by the Tribunal, vide order dated 4.6.1999, respondent R.S. Dogra, could not be promoted on time. 5. We have heard the Learned Additional Advocate General and gone through the record. As is clear from a bare reading of the facts, as narrated hereinabove, persons junior to respondent R.S. Dogra in the cadre of graduate Assistant …4… Engineers were given promotion in December 1997, or much before the stay order dated 4.6.1999 was passed, by the Tribunal in another O.A., i.e. O.A. No. 173 of 1999. Writ petitioner has offered no explanation, as to why R.S. Dogra, who was senior to respondents No. 3 to 7, graduate Assistant Engineers, had not been promoted before or at least alongwith respondents No. 3 to 7. Writ petitioner cannot make the stay order dated 4.6.1999, as an excuse for not promoting R.S. Dogra alongwith his juniors, i.e. respondents No. 3 to 7 in the year 1997, because that stay order came to be passed much later. Under these circumstances, we find no illegality in the order of the Tribunal directing the writ petitioner to give monetary benefits of promotion to respondent Rattan Singh Dogra from the date his junior, i.e. respondents No. 3 to 7, have been given such benefits. 6. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ( R.B. Misra ), J. September 10, 2008(vs) ( Surjit Singh ), J.