IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 5 of 2008 Sri B.B.L. Mittal ……Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ..……Respondents. Mr. D. Barthwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.K. Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand dated 5.7.2007 disposing of the Claim Petition No. 78 of 2007 filed by the petitioner herein. Through the aforesaid claim petition, the petitioner herein had sought promotion from the post of Chief Engineer Level-II to the post of Chief Engineer Level-I. While disposing of the claim raised by the petitioner, the Tribunal in its operative part referred to a judgment rendered by this Court dated 23.5.2007 as the basis of the denial of the claim of the petitioner. The aforesaid judgment is available on the record of this case as Annexure No. 12 alongwith the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. A perusal of paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment leaves no rooms for doubt that this Court while disposing of Review Petition No. 242 of 2006 filed in Writ Petition No. 102 (S/B) of 2005 (Rajendra Kumar Jain vs. State of Uttaranchal and others) directed that there would be no ad-hoc or regular promotion till the finalisation of the rules by the State Government. It is in the background of the aforesaid direction, that the claim raised by the 2 petitioner was declined by the Tribunal vide its order dated 5.7.2007. We find no infirmity with the order passed by the Tribunal. The claim of the petitioner could not have been allowed in the background of the directions issued by this Court. Additionally, it would be pertinent to mention that it is not the case of the petitioner that some persons junior to the petitioner was promoted to the post of Chief Engineer Level-I without the claim of the petitioner having been considered for the same. The pleadings in the instant case reveal that some officers had been given additional charge of the post of Chief Engineer Level-I without any monetary benefits. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are satisfied that since no person junior to the petitioner had been promoted to the post of Chief Engineer Level-I, the petitioner’s claim for promotion with retrospective or notional effect is wholly unjustified. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J) 5.3.2010 Avneet