IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 9053 of 2008 & CWP(T) No. 9002 of 2008 Date of decision: 20.09.2011 ________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP(T) No. 9053 of 2008 Gopal Krishan. .....Petitioner. Versus Secretary H.P. State Electricity Board & another. .....Respondents. 2. CWP(T) No. 9002 of 2008 Subhash Chand. .....Petitioner. Versus Secretary H.P. State Electricity Board & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP(T) No. 9053 of 2008 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Tek Chand Sharma with Mr. K.C. Shankhyan, Advocates. For the respondents: Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 ex parte. Respondent No. 2 stands deleted. 2. CWP(T) No. 9002 of 2008 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Tek Chand Sharma with Mr. K.C. Shankhyan, Advocates. For the respondents: Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Respondents No. 1 & 2 ex parte. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). Both these petitions are taken up together for disposal as the same involve common questions of law and fact. 2. Both the petitioners, namely Gopal Krishan and Subhash Chand had initially joined the employment of the respondent-Board as Mechanic. Similarly, respondent No. 3 in both the petitions, namely Shri Kamal Singh, had also initially joined the employment of the the respondent-Board as Mechanic. However, the case of respondent No. 2 in both the petitions, namely, Gian Chand, who was appointed as Motor Mechanic right from the beginning rests on somewhat different footing. 3. Admittedly, respondent No. 3 in both the petitions, namely, Shri Kamal Singh, who had initially joined the employment of the respondent-Board as Mechanic, was later on taken on the cadre of Auto Mechanic in the year 1982. He was thereafter promoted as Foreman (Auto). However, both the petitioners, who were also similarly situate, were though promoted as Auto Mechanic vide Office Order dated 01.12.1980, Annexure A-2, yet were not considered for further promotion as Foreman (Auto). 4. Against the above backdrop, it is stated that whereas petitioner Gopal Krishan has since retired from the service of the respondent-Board, petitioner Subhash Chand has also been, in the meantime, promoted as Foreman (Auto) vide Office Order dated 14.07.2011, copy of which has been brought on record by the petitioners at the time of hearing. Similarly, respondents No. 2 and ...3... 3 in both the petitions, namely, Gian Chand and Kamal Singh have also since retired. 5. In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 1 to consider the case of both the petitioners, namely, Gopal Krishan and Subhash Chand for promotion to the post of Foreman (Auto) alongwith consequential benefits, if any, from the due date(s) at par with respondent No. 3 in both the petitions, namely, Kamal Singh, if otherwise found eligible, by convening a review DPC within four months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioners to respondent No. 1. 6. The petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 20th September, 2011 (virender)