CWP(T) No. 6554/2008 28.09.2010 Present: Mr. H. K. Paul, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. for the respondents/ State Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): i) That the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of District Welfare Officer-cum-Probation Officer forthwith; ii) That the respondents may be directed to grant all the consequential benefits like seniority, back wages etc. to the applicant after considering her claim for promotion to the post of District Welfare Officer from the due date; iii) That the respondents may be restrained from filling up the post of District Welfare Officer from the category of Tehsil Welfare Officers; iv) That the complete record pertaining to promotion to the posts of District Welfare Officers from all feeder categories including the category of applicant i.e. Superintendents (Home) after the framing of Recruitment & Promotion Rules, vide Annexure A-1, may kindly be summoned for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Tribunal; v) Any other relief which may be deemed just and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the applicant.” 2. During the pendency of the present petition it cannot be disputed that petitioner was posted as District Welfare Officer, first at Sundernagar (Mandi) and then at Kullu. This is evident from the Notifications dated 26.7.2000 and 28.5.2001 (Annexures A-4 & A-5). It is also the petitioner’s case that she was also posted in the Directorate against the post of District Welfare Officer. 3. There is no dispute that the post of District Welfare Officer was to be filled-up in accordance with the rules framed by the Govt. known as “Himachal Pradesh Social & Women’s Welfare Department, District Welfare Officer-cum-Probation Officer (Class-II Gazetted) Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 1993” (Annexure A-1). 4. Petitioner was fully eligible to be considered for filling up the post of District Welfare Officer. In fact in the reply respondents have admitted that “certain posts of District Welfare Officer are lying vacant”. It is also admitted that the steps for filling up these posts on regular basis are likely to be taken up. 5. It is not in dispute that for one reason or the other, the posts could not be filled up on regular basis. This Court in CWP(T) No. 2319/2008 decided on 18.9.2009, also gave a direction that the case of the petitioner therein (Shashi Bijawan) be considered for promotion to the post of District Welfare Officer-cum-Probation Officer w.e.f. 9.9.1994. 6. During the pendency of the petition, petitioner has retired. As such learned counsel fairly submits that a direction be issued to the respondents to pay salary for the period for which the petitioner continued to officiate as a District Welfare Officer. 7. It is not in dispute that even though petitioner was actually not promoted as District Welfare Officer but nonetheless she was posted as such over a continuous period of time. Consequently keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Secy.-cum-Chief Engineer vs. Hari Om Sharma & Ors., 1998 (5) SCC 87 as also the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Bali Ram Sharma & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Anr., CWP(T) No.5293 of 2008, a copy of which is taken on record, a direction is issued to the respondents to accord monitory benefits to the petitioner for the period for which she continued to officiate as a District Welfare Officer. 8. Consequential action be positively taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which, thereafter petitioner shall be entitled to interest @9% per annum. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. September 28, 2010 (rana)