IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.8632 of 2008 Decided on : 8.12.2010 Madan Singh ….. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …………..Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge.(Oral) The petition is filed on the following prayers 7 (i) and (ii):- “i) The impugned act of the respondents may very kindly be quashed and set aside with directions to the respondents to correct the seniority list of the applicant of Clerks of the year 1974 by taking the date of appointment of applicant as 3.6.1974 and further corrections be carried out in the further seniority list and promote the applicant as and when his case fell due for promotion to the post of Junior Asstt. Senior Assistant and then to the post of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Superintendent and from the date of his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits of pay, arrears etc. etc. ii) Respondents may very kindly be directed to calculate and pay the arrears to the applicant with interest @ 18% per annum on the arrears accrued from the concerned date. 2. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, the following stand has been taken vide para 6 II and III&IV:- “II. That the contents of para are admitted to the extent that the applicant was allowed benefit of his approved Millitary Service and assigned a fresh seniority in the department vide letter dated 13.8.93. That the contents of para are denied to the extent that the applicant has not been placed at right place of seniority of clerks. It is submitted here that the applicant has been assigned seniority as per the provisions of De-Mobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in H.P. State Non-Technical Services) (First Amendment) 1992, w.e.f 3.6.74. It is submitted here that the applicant has wrongly submitted that his juniors were promoted to the post of Junior Assistant, whereas the post of Junior Assistant is not a promotional post and it is merely a placement of clerks in the higher scale and the applicant was allowed the scale of Junior Assistant w.e.f. 15.10.89 i.e after the completion of 10 years of service in the cadre of clerk in the Department as 3 per the provision of relevant Pay Scale as per office letter dated 9.10.90. Rest of the contents of the para are wrong hence denied. III&IV That the contents of paras are wrong, false and baseless hence denied. It is submitted here that the applicant has been assigned seniority w.e.f 3.6.74 and he would have been promoted to the post of Senior Assistant from the date when his junior namely Sh. Suresh Kumar and Brahma Nand, Clerks were promoted i.e on 7.12.90. As such the claim of the applicant is now become stale and he is not entitled for any kind of relief as prayed.” 3. In view of the above reply, particularly, contained in para 6(iii & iv), it is manifest that admittedly the petitioner has been assigned seniority w.e.f 3.6.1994. Though he would have been promoted to the post of Senior Assistant from the date when his juniors namely S/Shri Suresh Kumar and Brahma Nand, Clerks, were promoted as Senior Assistants on 7.12.1989 and the applicant was promoted much later thereafter during the year 1994. The claim of the petitioner is disputed only on the ground that the same had become stale disentitling him for grant of the relief prayed for. This contention on the face of it does not deserve any consideration and liable to be rejected. 4. In view of the above, the petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to grant promotion to the petitioner as Senior Assistant on and with effect from 7.12.1989, when his juniors as aforesaid were promoted 4 as such and assign seniority to him over and above them along with all the consequential benefits within three months from today. 5. The writ petition, so also the pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. 8th December, 2010. (lsp)