IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1089 OF 2004 (SS) Beerendra Singh Rawat …….Petitioner. Versus Uttaranchal Van Vikas Nigam and others. ………..Respondents. Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for petitioner. 13th November, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for petitioner. List revised. Case called out twice. None appears for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the legality of the order dated 31.8.2004 (Annexure -1 to the writ petition), by which his promotion from the post of Scaler to Logging Assistant has been cancelled. The case of the petitioner is that vide order dated 31.1.2004, he was promoted to the post of Incharge- Logging Assistant. Consequently, vide order dated 31st August, 2004, this promotion of the petitioner was cancelled. Hence, this writ petition. The impugned order dated 31.8.2004 says that the promotion of the petitioner was made in view of the Government Order No. 6/1/1972-Niyukti-4, by which the preference was to be given to the dependents of the soldiers, who died during the military operation. According to the respondents, the benefit of this G.O. was only applicable at the time of initial appointment and this benefit could not have been given at the time of promotion. A perusal of the said Government Order No. 6/1/1972-Niyukti-4 (Annexure -2 to the writ petition) 2 also makes it clear that the benefit of this Government Order will be given to the dependents of the soldiers who died during the military operation only at the time of initial appointment. There is nothing in this Government Order, which can show that the benefit of this Government Order will also be given at the time of promotion and when such a benefit has already been granted to the petitioner earlier at the time of his initial appointment, such a benefit cannot be granted to him again at the time of promotion. Moreover, the impugned order dated 31.8.2004 shows that a representation was made before the respondent authorities by one Mr. Roshan Lal Gaur/respondent no. 3, who had stated that in the order of seniority, he is at Serial No. 2 whereas the petitioner is at Serial No. 130 and therefore, the petitioner is much junior to him. It is the petitioner and not him, who is much junior. On a complaint, the seniority was examined and the claim of Mr. Roshan Lal/respondent no. 3 was found to be correct. On these facts, the earlier promotion of the petitioner was cancelled vide impugned order dated 31.8.2004. In view of this Court also, the benefit of the aforementioned Government Order cannot be given to the petitioner at the time of promotion. Moreover, admittedly the petitioner is much junior to the respondent no. 3, therefore, on this ground alone, the earlier promotion of the petitioner is liable to be cancelled. The writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 13.11.2009 Rathour