IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 5789 of 2008 Date of decision: 07.12.2010 ________________________________________________________________ N.K. Sharma. .....Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. S.M. Goel, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. Other respondents ex parte. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7(i) to (vi): “7(i) That the impugned Annexure A-12, dated 8th Jan., 1999, whereby the respondents No. 3 to 11 have promoted as Company Commander against the post of Company Commander/Senior Instructor/Store Officer/Centre Commander, may be quashed and set aside; (ii) That Seniority List of Civil Defence Instructors/Chief Instructors/Admn. Officers/Platoon Commanders/Assistant Store Officer of H.P. Home Guards and Civil Defence 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... Departments as it stood on 1.12.98 and circulated vide Office Memo, dated 2.12.98 may also be quashed and set aside; (iii) That the impugned amendment of 1989 Rules, vide notification dated 15.2.1989 (Annexure A-7) may also be quashed and set aside; (iv) That the provisions of impugned Recruitment & Promotion Rules at Annexure A-I, dated 20th Jan., 1971, whereby Platoon Commanders have been shown as feeder category to the post of Civil Defence Instructors; and Civil Defence Instructors have been included in feeder category for promotion to the post of Company Commanders vide Rule-7, Sub-Rules (I) & (ii) may be quashed and set aside; (v) That provision in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, vide Annexure A-7, dated 15.2.1989, whereby Civil Defence Instructors have been included in feeder category for promotion to the post of Company Commanders may also be quashed and set aside; (vi) That the respondents No. 1 & 2 may be directed to re-do the seniority list of Civil Defence Instructors/Chief Instructors/Admn. Officers/ Platoon Commanders/Assistant Store Officers after quashing the amendments as mentioned in paras supra and to consider the case of the application for promotion to the post of of Company Commander.” 2. The controversy raised by the petitioner in this petition concerns with regard to his seniority and promotion, viz-a-viz, private respondents No. 3 to 11. Admittedly, the petitioner as also private respondents No. 3 to 10 have since retired. The learned counsel for the petitioner is also not very sure whether private respondent No. 11 is still in service or he has also retired. 3. In view of the above, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, he may certainly point out the same by way of appropriate representation before the first respondent within a period of six weeks from today alongwith copy of this judgment and the first respondent shall decide the representation of the petitioner within another three months after affording an opportunity of being heard ...3... to the petitioner and the private respondents, if so desired. 4. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending CMP(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 7th December, 2010 (virender)