IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 3805/2008 (OA 1504/96) Date of Decision : March 17, 2009 Sh. Nand Lal Sharma Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. R.S. Gautam, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. R. K. Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (Science) with the State of Himachal Pradesh on 26.11.1987. He cleared his M.Sc. (Mathematics) in the year 1988 and vide letter dated 24.11.1988 informed the State about the same. The Head Master of the school vide Annexure A-1/B also informed the Director of Education about the same. In accordance with the relevant rules and policy such of those Trained Graduate Teachers who had cleared their M.Sc. were entitled to promotion as lecturer on the basis of their seniority. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 For reasons best known to the State the petitioner was ignored and persons junior to him were promoted as lecturers in the school cadre vide office order dated 7.8.1989. Shri Krishan Singh and Shri Rajesh Kumar are such persons. Even thereafter when other persons junior to the petitioner were promoted in terms of office order dated 15.9.1989 and 21.11.1989 he was left out and not considered. No reasons were assigned for the same inspite of official communication Annexure A-1/B. On 30.4.1990 petitioner however was posted against the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) in his own pay scale, that is, of Trained Graduate Teacher (Annexure A-5). Even at this stage his claim for promotion as Lecturer in his own right was ignored. Petitioner relentlessly persued the matter and vide letter dated 5.10.1993 (Annexure A-7/T) was informed by the Authorities that his claim was under consideration. Finally it was only vide order dated 22.3.1994 (Annexure A-8) that he was promoted as Lecturer in Mathematics and that too on adhoc basis. Aggrieved by the same petitioner made yet another representation to the respondent but without any result. Therefore, he was constrained to file present application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Shimla, which now stands transferred to this Court. In reply the respondents have categorically stated that vide order dated 27.8.1997 the petitioner was notionally promoted as 3 Lecturer in Mathematics w.e.f. 7.8.1989 i.e. the date his juniors were promoted. The benefit of seniority amongst the Lecturers has also assigned to him. However, with regard to the monetary benefits the reply is conspicuously silent. Therefore, this Court on 26.2.2009 had directed the Secretary (Education) to file his personal affidavit explaining as to why the monetary benefits from the date of the notional promotion be not accorded to the petitioner. Affidavit dated 12.3.2009 has been filed by the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Strangely, even in this affidavit it has not been explained as to why the monetary benefits be not accorded to the petitioner. The only defence taken is that “the petitioner has not performed his duties as Lecturer till his actual date of promotion i.e. 27.8.1997”. The affidavit is not clear but presumably he is not entitled to the monetary benefits as he has not worked as Lecturer. The affidavit is contrary to the record. Order dated 22.3.1994 (Annexure A-8) itself evidences the fact that the petitioner was promoted as Lecturer in Mathematics on Adhoc basis. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner was reverted back or not regularized from the said date. Be that as it may be, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner has been wrongly deprived of his promotion. The mistake cannot be attributed to the petitioner in any manner. He had taken steps of informing the state and infact the Principal of the school 4 himself had informed the Director of Education. Persons junior to the petitioner were promoted but his claim was repeatedly ignored without any justification. The action of State is illegal. The Apex Court in Karnail Singh versus State of Punjab and another 1994 Supp (3) SCC 724 has directed payment of all consequential benefits from the date of the employee’s promotion. In the facts and circumstances of the case the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay all consequential financial benefits to the petitioner for the post of Lecturer w.e.f. 7.8.1989 within a period of three months from today. It is clarified that if the same is not paid within a period of three months the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 6% from today. The petition is allowed and disposed of as such. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 17, 2009 (PK)