IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 4713 of 2008 Date of decision: 07.12.2010 ________________________________________________________________ Subhash Aggarwal. .....Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Marketing and Consumers Federation Limited, Shimla and another. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. G.D. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7(i), (ii) and (iii): “7(i) That the impugned order contained in Annexure A-2 may kindly be quashed and set aside being illegal. (ii) That the respondent No. 1 may kindly be directed to promote the applicant who is at Serial No. 1 as Senior Manager in the pay scale of Rs. 2400-4000/- with all consequential benefits or in the alternative the respondent No. 1 may kindly be directed to hold the DPC for the promotion to the post of Senior Manager (F&V). (iii) That the respondent No. 1 may also kindly be directed to pay the applicant the arrear alongwith 18% interest.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... 2. In the reply, filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, the following stand has been taken vide para 6(ii): “6(ii) That the contents of para No. 6(ii) of the O.A. is admitted to the extent that the applicant was initially appointed as Accountant and thereafter he was appointed as Area Manager. As far as the conduct of the applicant is concerned in this regard, it is submitted that the applicant was surcharged and the Registrar, Co. Operative Societies, H.P. vide order dated 14.5.1990 has held him responsible for the shortage caused due to the negligence of the applicant in confiscated goods to the tune of Rs. 36,795.60. The said order of Registrar, Co.Operative Societies was upheld by the Secretary, Cooperation vide his order dated 24.6.93. However, the applicant has filed writ petition against the said orders before the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. which is still pending for adjudication. Besides this the applicant was charge-sheeted for various charges in the year 1985 and after holding departmental enquiry the Management held him responsible for such acts of omission and commission and consequently his two increments were withheld in 1988. Lateron the applicant represented to the Management for waiving off the penalty and the Board of Directors considered his representation and waived off the penalty with the condition that the applicant should procure back the stocks of parry wares from the private Agency and the stocks which has been sold on credit basis by the applicant, the payment of the same may be recovered from the concerned party only, then penalty imposed on the applicant can be waived off. On 10.3.97 vigilance case has been registered against some of the officials of the Himfed including the applicant. As regard the promotion of respondent No. 2 to the post of Sr. Manager (F&V) is concerned, in this behalf it is submitted that the respondent No. 2 made a representation on dated 9.5.95 to the Management of the Himfed/respondent as well as to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, H.P. Shimla against the promotion of Shri Jyoti Lal Sharma to the post of Fert. Development Officer held in the year 1987. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies vide letter No. dated 13.9.96 requested the respondent No. ...3... I to constitute review DPC for the consideration of promotion case of the respondent No. 2. A copy of the letter is attached as Annexure-R/I. The respondent No. I informed the Registrar, Cooperative Societies vide letter No. dated 26.9.96 that it was not found proper to review the DPC after such a long time. The Board further decided that the Registrar, Cooperative Societies may decide the matter at his own level. A copy of letter attached as Annexure-R/II. Again the Registrar Cooperative Societies vide his D.O. Letter dated 4.11.96 directed the replying respondent to constitute review DPC and the decision fo the committee may be confirmed in the nexdt6 meeting of the BOD of the respondents. Accordingly, the review DPC was held on 12.8.97 and the Board of Directors vide its resolution No. 9 (vi) decided that in view of the gap of ten years after the DPC in question it was decided not to disturb the promotion already given to Shri Jyoti Lal Sharma as Fertilizer Development Officer and at the same time the Board of Directors decided to give Notional Promotion to Shri G.D. Bramta against the newly created post of Sr. Manager (F&W) in the Pay Scale of Rs. 2400-4000 with immediate effect. A copy of the resolution is attached as Annexure-R/III. Accordingly the Promotion was given to the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 24.10.97 as Annexure-R/IV. It is submitted that no DPC was held for the post of Sr. Manager (F&W) except the review DPC.” 3. Reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 is akin to that of respondent No. 1. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner as also private respondent No. 2, between whom the dispute concerning promotion is the subject matter of this petition, have since retired from service. In view of the pleadings on behalf of the parties and the materials on record, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 1 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the ...4... post of Senior Manager (Fruits and Vegetables) in the pay scale of ` 2400-4000/- at par with private respondent No. 2, who was promoted as such vide Officer Order dated 24th October, 1997, Annexure A-2, by ignoring the claim of the petitioner for promotion albeit the fact that he also fell within the zone of consideration at that time, subject to production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner within one month from today, whereafter the matter shall be considered and finally decided by the said respondent within the next three months. 5. Needless to say that consequential benefits, if any, shall follow the decision on the representation. 6. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 7th December, 2010 (virender)