IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.37 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 07.01.2010 Sukhpal Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Dr.M.L.Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 to 4 only at this stage. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to file any counter reply on behalf of the respondents at this stage. The petitioner joined the Education Department, Punjab as a Punjabi Teacher initially on adhoc basis vide the appointment letter dated C.W.P.No .37 of 2010 (O&M) 2 28.1.1976 and his services were later on regularized vide order dated 5.1.1979. The petitioner's claim is that Darshan Singh Mann-respondent No.5 is junior to him in the cadre of Punjabi Teacher, but he has been promoted as Master in April, 2001, while the petitioner has been promoted as such on 3.9.2007 only (Annexure P-9). It is urged that the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 belong to the District Cadre in which the petitioner has always remained senior to respondent No.5. On this premise, the petitioner urges that he is also entitled to be considered for promotion from the date when his alleged junior was promoted. The petitioner's further grievance is that he had represented the authorities and in fact, his claim was duly recommended by the District Education Officer (SE), Muktsar, vide memo dated 4.6.2004 (Annexure P-8), but still he has not been promoted from the due date. Having regard to the nature of relief sought in this writ petition, however, without expressing any views on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent No.2-Director, Public Instructions (Secondary Education), Punjab, to consider the petitioner's claim for retrospective promotion from the date when his alleged junior was promoted. Suffice it to observe that if respondent No.2 finds as a matter of fact that the petitioner is senior to respondent No.5 or that there is nothing to deprive of him the promotion from the due date, that the necessary orders regarding retrospective promotion of the petitioner from the date his junior was promoted alongwith the consequential benefits, C.W.P.No .37 of 2010 (O&M) 3 shall be passed. The needful be done within a period of 6 months. Disposed of. Dasti. 07-01-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE