IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 9221 of 2008. Decided on: 11.5.2011. ___________________________________________________________ Pritam Singh … Petitioner. Versus H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. G.S. Rathore, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Adv. For respondent No.4. : None. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (a) and (b):- “7 (a). Quash the impugned order A-4 whereby the respondents have reverted the applicant arbitrarily, mala fide and illegally. (b). Direct the respondent to permit the applicant to continue as Driver with all consequential benefits. 2. In reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, the following stand has been taken vide para 6 (2):- “6 (2). That the contents of this para of the OA are totally wrong and hence denied. It is worth to mention here that the applicant has not completed requisite number of years of service as daily wage driver for the post of driver. Since he has worked daily wage driver continuously only w.e.f. 1.4.94 to 6.2.98, which is less than four years. The applicant has worked daily wage cleaner since 1.7.1987 to 31.12.1993, which is more than 6 years. As 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 per the policy issued dt. 11.12.1997 by the State Government for the regularization of daily wager, the applicant is to be regularized as cleaner because he has worked less than 10 years on higher pay scale, so he will be considered for regularization by combining the service both in lower scale and higher scale but he shall be regularized on a lower post as for regularization on higher post 10 years complete service is essential. It is admitted that the applicant has joined as cleaner under protest. The copy of joining report is Annexure R-2.” 3. There is no reply on behalf of respondent No.4. 4. On 16.3.2011 and 27.4.2011, the following orders were passed by this Court in this matter:- “16.3.2011: Mr. Gulzar Singh Rathore has pointed out that respondents have not filed any reply to MA No. 3004 of 2003. Reply, if any, be filed within 4 weeks and the respondents are directed to produce the record on the next date of hearing. 27.4.2011: The respondents are directed to produce the record including the representation of respondent No.4 and the manner in which it was dealt with. List on 11th May, 2011.” 5. Reply to CMP (T) No. 1288 of 2008 (MA No. 3004 of 2003) stands filed. 6. The records along with representation of respondent No.4 produced and perused. 7. The petitioner had joined the employment of the respondent-Corporation as Cleaner on 1.7.1987. He was upgraded as Driver w.e.f. 28.2.2001. However, later on respondent No.4 submitted a representation dated 27.4.2001 on the basis of which 3 the petitioner was reverted to the substantive post of Cleaner vide office order dated 11.12.2002, Annexure A-4, on the ground that respondent No.4, who was senior to the petitioner was still working as a Cleaner. 8. Admittedly, the representation dated 27.4.2001 submitted by respondent No.4 is still pending decision and it is stated at the bar by Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 that a DPC is scheduled to be held for this purpose in the foreseeable future. However, the fact remains that one Sunil Kumar, who was appointed as Cleaner on 1.4.1988 and is junior to the petitioner, has since been promoted as Driver w.e.f. 28.2.2003. This is a somewhat anomalous situation and is liable to be rectified. 9. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and as a consequence office order dated 11.12.2002, Annexure A-4 quashed with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner for up-gradation/promotion as Driver at par with his junior, the aforesaid Sunil Kumar, in accordance with law, within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of being heard to him, if so desired. Needless to say that consequential benefits, if any, would follow. Interim order dated 16.1.2003 passed by the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal to continue till then. 10. The records returned. 11. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. May 11, 2011. (cr) 4