16.12.2010 Present: Mr. Lokender Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for respondents No.1 & 2 Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate, for respondents No.4 to 10, 12, 14 & 16 Smt. Vidya Gupta (respondents No.11), Sh. Hari Ram (respondents No.13) & Sh. Devinder Nath (respondents No.15) are present in the Court today. 2. According to Mr. Lokender Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, private respondents have been wrongly given benefit of seniority and shown as senior to the petitioner in seniority list (Annexure A- 1) circulated by respondent No.2. In the reply, respondents-State have justified their action by stating that petitioner who was earlier serving in the Department of Health and Family Welfare had been accorded benefit of jumped-up seniority. Consequently petitioner was not entitled to subsequent benefits, including placing him senior above the private respondents. 3. Petition was filed in the year 2000. Most of the private respondents have retired. Subsequent to the transfer of the petition to this Court petitioner is not able to ascertain the exact addresses of the private respondents and consequently no service can be effected upon them. 4. In these peculiar circumstances, a direction is issued to respondent No.2 to verify the record and ascertain as to whether benefits of promotion against the reserved quota were earlier accorded to the petitioner or not. If ultimately it is found that petitioner had actually not availed of any such benefits, in that event respondent No.2 shall take a decision on the petitioner’s claim in accordance with law. Decision shall be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. It is always open for the petitioner to approach respondent No.2 with a copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed off. December 16, 2010 ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.