IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 895/2011-A Decided on:19.12.2011 _____________________________________________ Sh. Kishan Dev Sharma son of Sh. Gokal Chand, r/o Block C-30/2, SDA Colony Vikas Nagar, Shimla-9, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. …Petitioner. Versus 1. State of H.P. through Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. 2. The Secretary (Personal) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. …Respondents. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner and one Sh. Gurprakash Attri were appointed as Assistant Legislative Draftsman (Hindi) and Assistant Legislative Draftsman (English), respectively in Law Department of Himachal Pradesh Secretariat. Sh. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Gurprakash Attri was promoted to the post of Codification and Publication Officer in the year 1988. Thereafter, the post of Codification and Publication Officer was up-graded to that of Assistant Legal Rememberancer-cum-Under Secretary (Law) in Punjab and on the same analogy, the post of Codification and Publication Officer was also up-graded in the State of Himachal Pradesh to that of Assistant Legal Remembrancer-cum-Under Secretary (Law) in the years 1994 with effect from 26.2.1991. Petitioner also made a representation on 22.8.1994 for the redressal of his grievance. The decision was taken by the Government on 14.9.1995 to upgrade the post of A.L.D. (Hindi) to that of Assistant Legal Rememberancer-cum-Under Secretary (Law). Petitioner was promoted against this post on 2.4.1996 with effect from 14.9.1995. 2. Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista has vehemently argued that though his client is similarly situate vis-à-vis Sh. Gurprakash Attri, but he has not been promoted with effect from 26.2.1991 as Assistant Legal Rememberancer-cum- Under Secretary (Law). 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that petitioner and Sh. Gurprakash Attri were in different streams and Sh. Gurprakash Attri was promoted as Codification and Publication Officer in the year 1988. Thus, the same treatment cannot be accorded to the petitioner. 3 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. The fact of the matter is that petitioner and Sh. Sh. Gurprakash Attri were appointed as A.L.D. (Hindi) and (English), respectively. Sh. Gurprakash Attri was promoted to the post of Codification and Publication Officer, as noticed hereinabove. The post of Codification and Publication Officer was also upgraded to that of Assistant Legal Rememberancer-cum-Under Secretary (Law) though in the year 1994 but with effect from 26.2.1991. Sh. Gurprakash Attri was promoted as Assistant Legal Rememberancer-cum-Under Secretary (Law) in the year 1995 retrospectively with effect from 26.2.1991. The representation made by the petitioner dated 22.8.1994 has already been finally considered and the post of A.L.D. (Hindi) has been upgraded to the post of Assistant Legal Rememberancer-cum-Under Secretary (Law) on 14.9.1995. Once a conscious decision had been taken to upgrade the post of A.L.D. (Hindi) to the post of Assistant Legal Rememberancer-cum-Under Secretary (Law), there is no reason why the petitioner should be treated differently. In case the post of Codification and Publication Officer has been upgraded with effect from 26.2.1991, the same treatment ought to have been given to the petitioner by giving him retrospective promotion with effect from 26.2.1991 instead of 14.9.1995. The respondents have 4 treated equals as unequals. Petitioner has right to be considered for promotion with effect from 26.2.1991 instead of 14.9.1995. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Legal Rememberancer-cum-Under Secretary (Law) with effect from 26.2.1991 instead of 14.9.1995, within a period of 8 weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 19.12.2011 *awasthi*