IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPT No.9576 of 2008 Date of Decision: December 8, 2011 Lok Pal son of late Shri Ram Dutt resident of Village Chuntara, Post Office and Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P. Versus 1. State of Himachal Pradesh through the Secretary (Urban Development) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla- 171002 2. The Director, Urban Development, Shimla-2. 3. Nagar Panchayat, Jubbal through its Secretary. ..Respondents Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. __________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Heard and gone through the record. Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É 2. Petitioner had been serving as Clerk in Nagar Panchayat, Jubbal, in the year 2000. On 3.11.2000, a resolution was passed by the Nagar Panchayat for upgrading the post of Clerk, held by the petitioner, to that of Assistant and appointing him against that upgraded post in the pay-scale of `5800-9200. Vide order dated 3.7.2003, copy Annexure A-2, resolution of Nagar Panchayat, Jubbal, upgrading the post of Clerk and promoting the petitioner against the upgraded post of Assistant, has been suspended by respondent No.2. Petitioner is aggrieved by this order of respondent No.2. He has approached this court for quashing the said order and issuing a direction to the respondents that petitioner be treated as Assistant for the purpose of salary and other service benefits. 3. Respondents, in their reply, have stated that post could not have been upgraded, without the approval of the Director, Urban Development and also the posts of Clerks and Assistants being borne on State cadre, promotion could not have been made, without seeking approval of the said Director, as interests of other persons borne on the cadres of Clerks and Assistants were required to be protected. It is specifically stated that there were 166 persons senior to the petitioner in the cadre of Clerks at the time when order of up-gradation of his post and promotion was issued. É3É 4. It appears from order Annexure A-1 itself that probably no post of Assistant was available, when the petitioner was promoted as Assistant from the post of Clerk. For promoting the petitioner what the Panchayat did was that the post of Clerk held by him was upgraded to that of Assistant in the pay-scale `5800-9200 and he was appointed to that post. Upgradation of the post could not have been done by the Panchayat, in view of the Provision of Section 306(8) of Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994, which says that approval for the creation of post(s) in a Municipality shall be made by the Director, after taking into consideration the requirement of the Municipality and its financial capacity. Upgradation of the post of Clerk to that of Assistant involves finances and, therefore, it is to be treated on par with the creation of a new post. 5. In view of the above stated position, no fault can be found with the impugned order, Anenxure A-2. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. December 8, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.