IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.: 5293 of 2008 Date of decision: 11.8.2010 Bali Ram Sharma and others … Petitioners. Versus State of H.P.and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. H.K.Paul, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. A.G. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioners by means of this writ petition has prayed for the following amongst other reliefs:- (i) The respondents may kindly be commanded by appropriate writ, order or direction to convene the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee on year to year basis to fill up the posts of Superintendents Grade- 1 in accordance with law. (ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to consider the applicant for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-1 from due dates and release all consequential 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 benefits like seniority, arrears of pay and allowances, etc. 2. According to the petitioners there were 21 posts of Superintendent Grade-I in the office of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. Out of these posts only two posts had been filled in and 19 were lying vacant. The petitioners claimed that they fall within the zone of consideration and were eligible to be promoted as Superintendent Grade-I and therefore, prayed that appropriate directions in this behalf be issued to the respondents. 3. The State in its reply did not contest the averments made by the petitioners on merits. The stand taken was that there was some dispute regarding seniority in the feeder category and the Tribunal in O.A. No.714 of 1997 titled as Raj Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh had passed an order on 11.4.1997 that though the process of making promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II in the Forest Department may go on but the same shall not be given effect till further orders. It is not understood how this would affect the chances of promotion of the persons who already stood 3 promoted as Superintendent Grade-II because they were not parties in O.A. No.714 of 1997 and their seniority was not under challenge in that petition. Further more, it may be pointed out that on 16.4.2009 CWP(T) 4291 of 2008 which arose out of O.A. No.714 of 1997 was dismissed as having become infructuous on the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners in Court. Therefore, the defence which has been raised by the respondents is no longer available to them. 4. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, it is directed that the case of the petitioners shall be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I on the date when the said posts were vacant. Since the petitioners have retired in case they are found eligible for promotion they shall be given all monetary and other consequential benefits. The arrears, if any, in this behalf be worked out on or before 31st December, 2010 and paid to the petitioners before the said date. In case the arrears are not paid to the petitioner on or before 31.12.2010, the State shall 4 be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. 11th August, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.