IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.2162/2008 and CWP (T) No. 3189 & 4244/2008 Decided on: 7.8. 2009 1. CWP (T) No. 2162/2008 Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Department Inspectors Grade-II Union. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. 2. CWP (T) No. 3189/2008 Roshan Lal and others …Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. 3. CWP (T) No. 4244/2008 Association of Inspectors Grade-II, Cooperative Societies. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the petitioners : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate in CWP (T) No.2162/2008. Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate in CWP (T) No.3189/2008. Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No. 4244/2008. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. for respondents No.1 and 2 in all the petitions. Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate for respondents No. 3 to 5 in CWP (T) No. 4244/2008. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The judgment was reserved in these petitions on 10.7.2009. However, in view of the supplementary affidavit filed by Sh. V.C. Katoch in OA No. 879/1996, the matter was listed for speaking to the minutes. Heard. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, these petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioner’s union in CWP (T) No. 2162 (OA No. 1369/1993) has sought direction to the State Government for the merger of cadre of Inspector Grade-II with Inspector Grade-I on Punjab pattern. The State Government had issued the necessary notification merging the cadre of Inspector-II to Inspector Grade-I on 1.8.1995. In view of this notification, CWP (T) No. 2162/2008 has become infructuous. The same is dismissed having become infructuous. The another set up of employees who were aggrieved by the issuance of notification dated 1.8.1995 have approached the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of CWP No. 879/1996, which was converted to CWP (T) No.3189/2008. The learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal stayed the operation of the notification at the stage of admission. The State Government in order to balance the equities filed supplementary affidavit of Joint Secretary (Cooperation) on 7.7.1997. The operative portion of supplementary affidavit reads thus: 3 “6 (i) The Government notification No. Coop.A (1)-1/95, dated 1.6.1996 merging the Inspector Grade-II with that of Inspector Grade-I shall be effective w.e.f. 1.8.1995 instead of 1.7.1995. In this way, the promotion orders issued on 24.7.1995 whereby services of 12 Inspectors were regularized shall remain intact. (ii) The present applicants in O.A. No.879/1996 as well as other similarly situated persons promoted on 1.6.1996 will not reverted and they will be entitled for benefits available under F.R. 22-C while fixing their pay. (iii) That the inter-se seniority of the applicants (Clerks) promoted on 1.6.1996 and the merged Inspector cadre will be based on the length of service of the concerned clerks and Inspectors. This will be done in relaxation of the existing provision of the R&P Rules for the post of Inspector Grade-I. (iv) That State Government contemplates framing of new R&P Rules for the category of Inspector Grade-I wherein we are proposing to increase the promotion to a reasonable level of clerks against 30% quota as available at present.” Another set of employees also filed original application OA No. 533/1997 which was converted to CWP (T) No. 4244/2008 for the enforcement of the notification issued by the State Government. The judgment was reserved by this Court on 10.7.2009. The learned counsel for the parties have failed to point out the supplementary affidavit dated 7.7.1997 in OA No. 879/1996 to the Court. It is in these circumstances the matters have been listed for speaking to the minutes to permit the learned counsel for the parties to assist the Court after the filing of this affidavit. The Court has ascertained from the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties whether these petitions can be disposed of on the basis of the working formula suggested as per the supplementary affidavit. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4 parties in all the three petitions have fairly submitted that the formula evolved by Mr. V.C. Katoch by way of his affidavit is acceptable to the parties. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in CWP (T) 2162/2008 and CWP (T) No. 4244/2008 have submitted that their clients are stagnating on the same post for more than two decades. It is settled law by now that there should be two to three promotional avenues available to every category of employees to remove the stagnation and to improve the efficiency in public service. Accordingly, the interest of justice will suffice by directing the respondent-State to consider this plea of the petitioners in accordance with law laid down by their Lordships in A. Satyanaryana and others versus S. Purushotham and others, (2008) 5 SCC 416 within a reasonable period. Consequently, the respondent-State is directed to do the needful as per the supplementary affidavit filed by Mr. V.C. Katoch in O.A. No. 879/1996 converted to CWP (T) No. 3189/2008. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the petitions are disposed of. No costs. The application(s), pending if any, shall stand disposed of. 7.8.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*