IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.1650 of 2010. Decided on: October 20,2011. Jagdeep Chandel …….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …….Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr.Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr.D.K. Khanna, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justice V.K. Ahuja,J.(oral): The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs: “i) That a writ of Certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing and setting aside the action of the Respondents more particularly Respondent No.2 whereby the case of the petitioner has been rejected for relaxation in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. ii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to promote the petitioner, after granting the requisite relaxation, to the post of Senior Assistant from the due date i.e. from the date other similarly situated persons and incumbents has been promoted with all consequential benefits like seniority and arrears @ 9% interest.” 2 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk in the Education Department in the year 1995 and he joined as such on 17.1.1995. It was further alleged that petitioner was promoted as Junior Assistant in the year 2000. On the constitution of the Subordinate Services Selection Board, the petitioner joined, on deputation, in the Board as Clerk, on 25.8.2000. The petitioner was absorbed permanently in the Board on 21.9.2002. The case for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant was considered but respondent No.3 refused the consider the service rendered by him in the parent department prior to his absorption in the Board. The petitioner has claimed that he is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, considering his service in his parent department also. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material placed on the record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record an attested copy of the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.8449 of 2010, titled Andeep Rana and others versus H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board, decided on 15.9.2011, vide which a similar question arose for consideration and the petitioners therein, who were Junior Assistants in the H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board and were being considered for the post 3 of Senior Assistant, as the petitioner in the present case, had filed the said writ petition claiming that the past services rendered by them in the parent department i.e. Education Department be also considered. It was held by the learned Single Judge as under: “…….respondent-Board is directed to count the service rendered by the petitioners in the grade in other departments prior to their absorption in the Board for the purpose of promotion also. Needful be done latest by 31st December, 2011. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The petitioners shall be considered for promotion as and when the post(s) fell vacant and if found eligible shall be promoted with all consequential benefits.” 5. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner, who was working in the same Department as the petitioners in the above referred case, is entitled to be considered for promotion keeping in view the services rendered by him in the Education Department. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The past service rendered by the petitioner shall be considered by respondent No.3 in considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. In case the petitioner is considered for promotion and is found eligible and is promoted from the due date, the monetary benefits as are due to the petitioner shall also be paid 4 accordingly within four months from the date of his promotion. 6. The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any. October 20, 2011 (V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge.