IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP (T) 14407 of 2008 Decided on: May 26, 2011 Kahan Chand ..Petitioner. Versus HPSEB & others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner joined the service of H.P. State Electricity Board, impleaded as respondent No.1 herein, as Oil Cleaner, on daily wage basis, in the year 1982. His services were regularized on 16.8.1986 and on 30.6.1990, he was promoted as Telephone Mechanic. While working as Telephone Mechanic, he was given the charge of Acting Foreman, vide order Annexure RA-2. The order said that petitioner would be entitled to acting allowance, equivalent to 20% of pay, to which he would have been entitled had he been promoted to the post of Foreman. Order further stated that taking over of the charge of Acting Foremen was not to be considered as promotion nor was the petitioner to Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É acquire any right to continue to hold the charge of the post of Acting Foreman. Petitioner and five other persons, who too had been acting as Foremen, were reverted to their posts of Telephone Mechanic, by cancelling stop-gap arrangement, vide order dated 22.5.2006, copy Annexure P-3 and also Annexure RA-3. Petitioner is aggrieved by this order. He seeks quashing of this order. Also, he has prayed for restoring his promotion as Foreman and payment of acting allowance from October, 2005 onwards, and also for restoration of previous provisions of recruitment and promotion rules. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 3. The order, by which the petitioner was required to hold the charge of Acting Foreman, which is dated 30.12.2000, and copy whereof is Annexure RA-2, clearly indicates that this was not a case of promotion. Petitioner was not to get the salary for Foreman. He was to get only allowance @ 20% of the pay of Foreman, to which he would have been entitled, had he been promoted to the post of Foreman. Order further stated that the petitioner was not to have any right to continue to hold the charge of the post of Acting Foreman and was liable to be reverted to the original post of Telephone Mechanic. So, no fault can be found with the order of reversion, copy Annexure P-3, which É3É has been assailed by the petitioner. Consequently, petition is dismissed. May 26, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.