Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 2456 of 2010. Dated of Decision: December 29, 2010. Ram Swaroop …… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ……. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. None for other respondents. Surinder Singh, J (oral): 1. The petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Assistant in the respondent-Education Department in the year 1972. Thereafter, in the year 1999, he was promoted as ‘Junior Lecturer Assistant’. In the year 2003, respondents-department issued seniority list of the ‘Junior Lecturer Assistants’. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-department promoted the persons junior to him as the ‘Senior Lecturer Assistant’. Though he made various representations, but it turned deaf 2 ears. Even in the year 2009, the respondent- department also made certain promotions whereby the persons junior to the petitioner were promoted. Thus, by means of the present petition, the petitioner sought the following reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned action of the respondent education department not considering the superior and preferential claim of the petitioner to the post of the Senior Lecturer Assistant being eligible in all respect and promoting to the junior person to the petitioner to the post of Senior Lecturer Assistant may kindly be declared in violation of Articles 14, 16, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India, unreasonable, harsh, discriminatory, colourable exercise of powers and arbitrary. (ii) That the respondents be directed to promote to the petitioner to the post of Senior Lecturer Assistant w.e.f. 8.8.2008 when the junior to the petitioner, present proforma respondent Nos.4 to 10 have been ordered to be promoted to the post of the Senior Lecturer Assistant vide Annexures P-5 & P-6 with all consequential benefits of seniority, pay 3 fixation and arrears with interest @ 18% till date of payment in the interest of justice and fair play. (iii) That the respondents be directed to produce the entire record of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.” 2. The respondents No.1 to 3 vide their reply- affidavit did not dispute the claim of the petitioner, but submitted that his name was left out of the promotion list inadvertently, however, later the petitioner was promoted as ‘Senior Lecturer Assistant’ vide Directorate Office Order No.EDN- H(8)B(2)1/88-02-II dated 27th July, 2010 on notional basis with effect from 8.8.2008 in the pay scale of `10300-34800. 3. Though the relief sought by the petitioner was granted, but half-hearted by respondents No.1 to 3, yet when the persons junior to the petitioner were promoted on and w.e.f. 8.8.2008, then it is not understood why the actual promotion was not ordered and what this word ‘inadvertent’ means when he was legally entitled for it. 4 4. In my view, the impugned order by which he was given notional benefit is unreasonable, harsh and discriminatory, whereas the petitioner is eligible for his actual promotion on and w.e.f. 8.2.2008, with all consequential benefits. 5. Normally, the Court would only order for considering the employee for promotion, but in the instant case, respondents No.1 to 3 have not disputed that the petitioner was not entitled for his promotion, but owing to inadvertence, he was ignored, for none of his fault, which is a serious lapse. Therefore, the respondents are hereby directed to actually promote the petitioner on and w.e.f. 8.8.2008 i.e. from the date when the persons junior to him were promoted and not notionally and the petitioner shall also be entitled to all the consequential benefits, i.e. the financial benefits, which were accorded to the persons junior to him which shall be paid by respondents No.1 to 3, within three months from today, failing which, the respondents shall be liable to pay an interest @ 9% per annum to the petitioner on the amount due from the date he was entitled till its final disbursement to 5 him. The petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. 5. All pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. The matter stands disposed of. December 29, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.