IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.2618/2008 Reserved on: 30.8.2010 Decided on:7.9.2010 Sarwan Ram. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. ... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. The post of Junior Scale Assistant was in feeder category for promotion to the post of Senior Scale Assistant. Petitioner was considered for promotion for the post of Senior Scale Assistant and was promoted on 30.5.1987. He has forgone his promotion vide Annexure A-5 dated 24.8.1987. Thereafter the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 21.1.1988, 29.2.1988, 27.4.1988, 26.6.1988 and 20.6.1990. The incumbents, who were junior to the petitioner, were promoted since the petitioner had forgone his promotion to the post of Senior Scale Assistant. The posts of Junior Scale Assistant and Senior Scale Assistant were clubbed together vide office order dated 7.11.1988. The pay scale of Assistants/Accountants (pre-revised Rs. 1 . Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 570-1080) and Senior Scale Assistants (pre-revised Rs. 600-1120) was revised to Rs. 1500-2640. Petitioner made a representation for assigning him seniority over and above the persons who were promoted before him as Senior Scale Assistants on 8.5.1989. The petitioner also made representation against the final seniority list of ministerial staff, as it stood on 31.12.1988, on 10.3.1992. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected by the competent authority on 31.3.1992. Petitioner made another representation against the final seniority list as, it stood on 31.12.1992, on 31.12.1993. The same was rejected by the competent authority on 14.10.1994 whereby reference to the earlier decision dated 31.3.1992 was made. Persons, who were promoted between 30.5.1987 to 26.6.1988, were further promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-II. 2. Ms. Archana Dutt has strenuously argued that even though her client has forgone his promotion on 30.5.1987, however, in view of letter dated 7.11.1988 whereby the posts of Junior Scale Assistant and Senior Scale Assistant were clubbed together and termed as Senior Assistant her client should rank senior to the private respondents. She further contended that the representation made by her client has not been considered by the respondents in right perspective. She further contended that her client should have been considered for promotion with effect from 1988. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that since the petitioner has foregone his promotion on 30.5.1987, the incumbents, who were juniors to him were rightly promoted to the post of Senior Scale Assistant with effect from 30.5.1987 to 20.6.1990. He further contended that the pay scale of Assistant/Account was Rs. 570-1080 and pay scale of Senior Scale Assistant was Rs. 600-1120 and in these circumstances there is no 3 illegality in the seniority list whereby the private respondents have been shown senior to the petitioner. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was promoted after recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee to the post of Senior Scale Assistant on 30.5.1987. In his own wisdom, petitioner has foregone his promotion and the same was accepted as per Annexure A-5 dated 24.8.1987. It is in these circumstances that the persons, who were juniors to the petitioner as Junior Scale Assistant/Account, were promoted by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 21.1.1988, 29.2.1988, 27.4.1988, 26.6.1988 and 20.6.1990. Petitioner has not made any representation against these promotions, which were effected between 30.5.1987 to 20.6.1990. He has made first representation only on 8.5.1989 bringing to the notice of the authorities that after clubbing the posts of Junior Scale Assistant and Senior Scale Assistant with effect from 1.1.1986, he should have ranked senior to the private respondents. The representation made by the petitioner against the tentative seniority list of ministerial staff, as it stood on 31.12.1988, was rejected on 31.3.1992. In Annexure A-15, there is a reference to the decision of the Personnel Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh dated 23.1.1990. Second representation made by the petitioner against the seniority list of ministerial staff was rejected on 14.10.1994 and the incumbents juniors to him were promoted as Superintendent Grade-II on 19.12.1994. Private respondents were promoted in the pay scale of Rs. 600-1120 and at that time petitioner was working in the pay scale of Rs. 570-1080. These posts have been clubbed on 7.11.1988. In these circumstances, there is nothing wrong with the decision of the State to 4 place the petitioner below the persons, who were promoted before him in the pay scale of Rs. 600-1120. Petitioner cannot take advantage in these circumstances that he should been ranked above the private respondents in the seniority list as per decision dated 7.11.1988. These were the consequences, which were bound to follow after the petitioner had foregone his promotion on 24.8.1987. As per settled law, the promotion foregone by the petitioner was for a period of one year. However, in the present case, as many as three Departmental promotion Committees were convened between 21.1.1988 to 27.4.1988. Petitioner has not made any representation as per the pleadings of the parties seeking promotion immediately after the period of one year. He has only been making representations seeking seniority on the basis of letter dated 7.11.1988. Petitioner ought to have filed representation within a reasonable period seeking his promotion. In these circumstances, respondent-State cannot be directed to consider case of the petitioner after a gap of 22 years. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma) Judge. 7.9.2010. *awasthi*