IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 96 of 2010 Decided on: 29.12.2011 Mani Chand, Senior Assistant (Retired), Forest Working Division, Sunder Nagar, H.P. State Forest Corporation, Sunder Nagar. Present address: Village and P.O. Mahadev, Tehsil Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. …Appellant. Versus The H.P. State Forest Corporation Limited, New Himrus Building, Shimla, through its Managing Director. …Respondent. Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the H.P. High Court Rules. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. Keshav S. Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) A short question is involved in this appeal. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) filed a petition for grant of the following reliefs: “(1) that the respondent Corporation may be directed to give to the applicant the arrears of salary for the post of Junior Assistant (now Senior Assistant) with effect from 7.11.1984 to 21.8.1988 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -: 2 :- (2) that the respondent corporation may be directed to give promotion to the applicant to the post of Office Manager (Junior) with effect from the date his juniors were so promoted, i.e. with effect from 31.8.1987. (3) The Corporation may also be directed to give all consequential benefits as a result of the said promotion of the applicant.” 2. The learned Single Judge held that the petitioner was entitled to count his Army Service for purposes of fixing the seniority after re-employment in the Forest Corporation and, therefore, granted relief No. 1 in favour of the petitioner. However, no interest was granted. 3, The petitioner by means of this appeal now prays that in view of the fact that he is deemed to be a Junior Assistant w.e.f. 07.11.1984, he is entitled to be considered for promotion to the next higher post when his juniors were so considered and promoted as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. 4. It is contended by Mr. Keshav S. Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Single Judge inadvertently did not consider the second relief and consequently, third relief could not be granted to the petitioner. Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation contends that, in fact, the petitioner was not entitled to have his Army service counted for the purpose of seniority, since he had joined the Indian Army prior to 01.11.1962. In our considered opinion, the respondent-Corporation cannot be permitted to raise this objection since the respondent-Corporation -: 3 :- has not challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which has attained finality, as far as this question is concerned. 5. Once the learned Single Judge held that the petitioner was entitled to be considered as Junior Assistant w.e.f. 07.11.1984, then the natural consequence was that he alongwith persons, who were Junior Assistants on 07.11.1984 or thereafter, have to be considered for promotion, if he fulfilled the other requisite requirements of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. This has not been done and the petitioner appears to have been considered for promotion by taking into consideration his earlier seniority in the seniority list. The petitioner once having been given the benefit of being considered to be a Junior Assistant (now Senior Assistant) w.e.f. 07.11.1984, the period from this date shall also has to be reckoned while considering his eligibility for promotion to the next higher post. 6. The appeal is, therefore, allowed to the limited extent that the respondent-Corporation shall constitute review DPCs and the petitioner shall be considered to be a Junior Assistant w.e.f. 07.11.1984 and, thereafter, considered for promotion as and when his turn comes according to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules alongwith his juniors. In case, the petitioner is found fit for promotion, he shall obviously be entitled to all monetary benefits. The respondent-Corporation is directed to ensure that the entire exercise in this matter is concluded by 30th June, 2012. In case, -: 4 :- the petitioner is found eligible for promotion to the next higher post(s) on earlier date, he shall be given the actual monetary benefits latest by 31st August, 2012, failing which the respondent- Corporation shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum. (Deepak Gupta) Judge (V.K. Ahuja) Judge December 29, 2011 (rajni)