CWP No.14642 of 1989 : 1 : In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 08.01.2010 Sultan Singh Vs. The State of Haryana and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.AS Tewatia, Advocate,for the petitioner. Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl. Advocate Genera, Haryana, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Teacher in the year 1955 in the State of Punjab. He improved his qualification and passed Bachelor of Arts in the year 1956 and further did his Bachelor in Education in the year 1959. He was promoted as Master in the year 1964. On re-organisation of the State of Punjab and creation of State of Haryana, the petitioner was allocated in the State of Haryana with effect from 01.11.1966. Under the instructions dated 23.07.1957, 25 per cent posts of the BT/B. Ed. Masters should be filled by promotion from amongst the teachers working in the lower grade who have passed the BA/BT/B.Ed. Examinations on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Some writ CWP No.14642 of 1989 : 2 : petitions came to be filed claiming the benefits of aforesaid instructions and one of such case reported as Kirpal Singh Bhatia and others Vs. Union of India and others, 1970 Current Law Journal, 11, was allowed with a direction to implement the instructions. The matter was concluded by dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. The petitioner also claimed the benefit of promotion on the basis of acquisition of the qualification in terms of the instructions referred to above. The petitioner claimed his promotion with effect from 24.11.1966, the date when Vijay Kumar Pathak, who was junior to the petitioner, was promoted as Lecturer. In the meantime, the petitioner had been promoted as Lecturer with effect from 23.10.1972. The claim of the petitioner submitted through representation came to be rejected vide the impugned order. The representation of the petitioner has been partly accepted and the date of promotion of the petitioner as Lecturer has been shifted to 02.05.1972 instead of 23.10.1972, but without any arrears. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the judgment of the Court was announced on 02.05.1972 and, thus, prior to that there was no ground for such promotion. In the judgment referred to above, it was only a declaration of the law and factual position. However, there is nothing on record nor in the reply to show that the judgment itself was prospective in nature and it had no application to the persons CWP No.14642 of 1989 : 3 : otherwise entitled to the promotion. Otherwise also, in the judgment itself, retrospective effect has been granted. The fact that the juniors to the petitioner were promoted as Lecturer with effect from 24.11.1966, is not in dispute either in the impugned order or otherwise particularly in the absence of the reply. In the above circumstances, the present writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is found entitled to the benefit of retrospective promotion with effect from 24.11.1966, the date when junior person, respondent No.2, was promoted. In the judgment relied upon by the petitioner Annexure P-1, promotion of the junior had not been interfered by the Court. Applying the same analogy, it is directed that promotion of respondent No.2 shall not be interfered with, however, the petitioner shall be entitled to notional benefit of promotion with effect from 24.11.1966. However, the salary of the petitioner shall be fixed by giving him notional benefit of increments, pay revision etc. as was available to respondent No.2. The emoluments of the petitioner shall be accordingly re-fixed. He shall be entitled to all financial and consequential benefits with effect from 02.05.1972 onwards. 08.01.2010. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE