IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.7417 of 2008 Date of decision : May 20, 2011 Baldev Raj Sharma …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : M/s Ramesh Thakur & R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1,2 and 4. Mr. Varun Chandel, vice Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.3. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner was working as JBT in the Primary Education Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh. He joined service on 8th August, 1955 and retired on 31st August, 1987. He was promoted as Head Teacher in May, 1985. Thereafter, three persons, junior to him, namely S/Shri Vishambar Dutt, Dina Nath and Varyam Singh, were promoted as Centre Head Teachers, in April 1987, but the petitioner, who was senior to those three persons, was not so promoted. He made representation Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… and it was then that he was promoted as Centre Head Teacher, on and with effect from 2nd April, 1987. This order of promotion was issued after his retirement. 3. Now, grievance of the petitioner is that his pay as Centre Head Teacher fixed, on the basis of notional order of promotion, effective from 2nd April, 1987, is lower than the pay of the abovenamed three persons, who were junior to him, as per Seniority List Annexure A-1. 4. Respondents’ response is that the persons, who are shown junior to the petitioner, in the Seniority List, Annexure A-1, were in fact senior to the petitioner and that in the said Seniority List Annexure A-1 they happened to be shown junior to the petitioner, because of the reason that their period of Emergency Basic Training had not been taken into account. 5. There is nothing on record, showing that the period of emergency basic training is required to be taken into account, for fixing the seniority of JBTs. 6. In view of the abovestated position, writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to respondent No.2 to re-fix the pay of the petitioner, by taking into account his notional promotion as Centre Head Teacher, w.e.f. 2nd April, 1987, which was ordered after his retirement and also by taking into account the fact that …3… in Seniority List Annexure A-1, he was being shown senior to three other Teachers, namely S/Shri Vishambar Dutt, Dina Nath and Varyam Singh, and, therefore, his pay on re-fixation should not be lower than that of the abovenamed three teachers. Direction be complied with within three months. May 20, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J