IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 8611 of 2008 Decided on : 07.12.2010. Vijay Kumar Joshi ..…Petitioner. Versus State of H.P Through Secretary and other. .… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General, Advocate. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (i) and (ii) :- “(i) To quash and set aside order Annexure A-4 qua the applicant with directions to the respondents to grant all the benefits of increments, pay and promotions from time to time and after treating him as if the applicant is not required to pass the typing test at all and calculate and grant all the benefits of seniority promotion and arrears to the applicant forthwith without any further delay alongwith interest @ 12 % per annum (ii) That in the alternative respondents may very kindly be directed to act in accordance with their own letters and allow the applicant notionally all the benefits from the due dates i.e. on the date the said benefits accrued and factually from 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No, 2 the date of passing of the typing test and by giving all earlier benefits of promotions as Senior Assistant with effect from 31.10.1994 in the interest of law and justice.” 2. In the reply, filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, the following stand has been taken vide para 6 (i) to (iii) : “ 6 (i) That the contents of this para are admitted to the extent that the applicant was appointed as Clerk in 1979 in the respondent department on compassionate ground and is working as such. However, it is submitted that the applicant when appointed as Clerk was required to qualify the type test within one year from the date of his appointment and only thereafter the applicant was entitled for increments as per the instructions of the department of personnel issued vide letter dated issued vide letter Per (AP- II)Af(4)-3/84-Part-I, dated 3.1.1992. If the compassionate appointees do not qualify the typing test within one year, will not be given annual increment and after completion of one year of service or the day they qualify the typing test, whichever is later from that date they will be given first annual increment. 6 (ii) That in reply to this para it is submitted that as per the instructions contained in letter No. Per (AP-II)AF(4)- 3/84 Part-I, dated 3.1.92 from the department of personnel vide which it has been envisaged that the department may impose a condition on such candidates, that neither they will be allowed to cross the efficiency bar nor they will be considered for confirmation and further promotion, till they qualify the typing test. Since the applicant qualified the typing test on 9.3.1999 and after qualifying the typing test he was considered for promotion to the post of Sr. Asstt. On 19.4.1999 as per provisions contained in R & P Rules. For further promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II, the 3 provisions contained in Recruitment and Promotion Rules is as under :- “By promotion from amongst the Sr. Assistants who have rendered 6 years regular service as Sr. Assistant on seniority basis on the availability of post.” 6 (iii) That in reply to this para it is submitted that since, the applicant qualified the typing test on 9.3.1999 and after qualifying the type test, he was considered for promotion to the post of Sr. Asstt on 19.4.99 as per provisions contained in Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Therefore, there is no question of considering him w.e.f 19.4.1990.” 3. In view of the above, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, he may certainly point out the same by way of appropriate representation before the first respondent/competent authority within a period of one month from today along with copy of this judgment and the said respondent/competent authority shall decide the same within another three months after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 4. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. 7th December, 2010 CS