IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.WP No. 4558 of 1997. [O&M] Date of Decision: 29th July, 2011. Mohan Lal Petitioner through Mr. D.S.Brar, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The prayer in this petition is for issuance of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Circle Superintendent Grade-II from the date his juniors were so promoted. During the pendency of the writ petition, a direction was issued to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the Chief Engineer, Punjab, PWD ]B&R Branch], Patiala has passed an order dated 7.10.2010, inter-alia, claiming that in the seniority list of the Senior Assistants, the name of the petitioner figured at Sr. No. 19, whereas 15 vacancies were available and as such only 15 Senior Assistants were promoted. The petitioner has countered the afore-stated stand taken by the respondents by way of an affidavit dated 1.11.2010, Paras 3 and 4 whereof read as under:- “3. That on 06.02.1995 to 23.07.1996, the date of tentative seniority was circulated; following persons junior to the deponent [petitioner] were promoted:- 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sr. No. Name Date of appointment as Clerk Date of promotion as Sr. Assistant Date of promotion as Divl. Supdt. Name of Circle where working S/Shri Mohan Lal petitioner 01.07.1963 02.09.1975 Not considered Bathinda 1. Kamal Bir Singh 22.06.1964 05.12.1978 31.10.1995 Patiala 2. Jiwan Parkash 10.10.1967 10.02.1978 11.08.1995 Ferozepur 3. Chander Sekhar 05.12.1969 25.10.1985 07.12.1995 Ludhiana 4. Manjeet Singh 20.09.1972 01.01.1985 07.06.1995 Patiala 5. Ramesh Lal Miglani 03.06.1975 10.05.1978 09.08.1995 Ferozepur Above names are given in Para No. 9 of writ petition. The names of above persons Junior to the deponent [petitioner] figured in the representations also. The orders of promotion of above mentioned persons are at Annexure A-1, A-2, A-3, A4, A5. They retired as Superintendent on superannuation. 4. That even as per the tentative seniority list in which the name of the deponent is shown at Sr. No. 19, the name of Shri Chander Sekhar is at Sr. No. 69. He was promoted on 07.12.1995 as Supdt. He was much junior to the deponent. Extract from seniority list is at Annexure A-6. Order of promotion of Shri Chander Sekhar is at A3. In view of the above and the stand taken in the writ petition, the writ petition may be allowed with costs”. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Chief Engineer, PWD [B&R], Patiala to verify the facts averred by the petitioner in his affidavit dated 1.11.2010, as reproduced above. If it is found that the persons as mentioned above were junior to the petitioner and they have been promoted as Superintendents over-looking the claim of the petitioner, he shall also be considered for promotion as Superintendent from the due date and appropriate orders to this effect shall be passed. If the petitioner is promoted retrospectively, he shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits. Let the needful be done within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Disposed of. Dasti. July 29, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE