IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 9023 of 2008. Decided on: 28.4.2011. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Tilak Raj Sharma … Petitioner. Versus Chairman, HP Khadi & Vill. Industries Board and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 & 2 : Ms. Reeta Goswami, Advocate. For respondent No.3 : None. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (I) & (II):- “7 (I). That the impugned promotion order dated October, 2001 in respect of Sh. Manoj Kumar respondent No.3 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (II). That the applicant being senior be considered for his promotion as Clerk from the date his junior has already been promoted as such.” 2. In the reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2, the following stand has been taken vide para 3:- “3. That in reply to para No. 3, it is submitted that the Board was in immediate requirement of some experienced Clerk. As submitted, the work of the Board was suffering and it was decided to fill up the post with the existing 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 suitable staff. The matter was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee and the names of all the eligible Class-IV were considered in the meeting. Keeping in view the requirement, the name of respondent No.3 was found to be the most suitable candidate. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Board (Board of Directors) which was approved by the Board. Only after this, he was offered the post of Clerk. No arbitrarily and illegally has been done by the Board.” 3. The reply on behalf of respondent No.3 is akin to that of respondents No. 1 & 2. 4. Rejoinders refuting the above stands on behalf of the respondents and reiterating the averments set up in the petition have been filed. 5. It is manifest from seniority list of Peons/Chowkidars as on 15.5.2001, Annexure A-3, that whereas the petitioner-Shri Tilak Raj Sharma figures therein at Sr. No. 16, respondent No.3- Shri Manoj Kumar is at Sr. No. 29. Thus, the former was admittedly senior to the latter. It being so, the action on the part of respondents No. 1 & 2 to promote respondent No.3 as Clerk by ignoring the rightful claim of the petitioner, cannot be sustained. 6. In view of the above, the petition is allowed with a direction to respondents No. 1 & 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Clerk on notional basis from the date his junior, respondent No.3, was promoted as such. As admittedly the petitioner has also since been promoted as Clerk on 29.8.2006, but he has not availed the promotion, perhaps due to 3 pendency of the present writ petition, he shall be entitled for pay and allowances as Clerk only with effect from 29.8.2006, which shall be payable to him within three months from today along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum failing which higher interest at the rate of 12% shall be payable. 7. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. April 28, 2011. (cr)