IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 120 of 2004 (S/S) Jagpal, S/o Sri Banwari, Safai Nayak, Nagar Palika Parishad, Mussoorie, District Dehradun ……….…..Petitioner Versus 1. Nagar Palika Parishad Mussoorie, District Dehradun, service through its Executive Officer 2. Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad Mussoorie, District Dehradun ……………..Respondents Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Joshi, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate, for the respondents. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.02.2004, passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the promotion order of the petitioner to the post of Safai Nayak has been stayed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was one of the eight senior most Safai Karamcharies with 2 the respondent-Nagar Palika Parishad. He was promoted to the post of Safai Nayak vide order dated 12.02.2004, and took over the charge on 13.02.2004 on the post to which he was promoted. However, vide impugned order dated 16.02.2004, the promotion of the petitioner was stayed. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the stay of promotion order after its implementation, is illegal. 4. In the counter affidavit it has been pleaded by the respondents that other Safai Karamcharies started demonstrations after the petitioner was promoted as Safai Nayak. They also started claiming their right to be promoted. Therefore, the promotion order of the petitioner was stayed. 5. In the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner it has been stated that during the pendency of this writ petition, Safai Hawaldar Munna has retired on 31.05.2004, Safai Hawaldar Mahesh has retired on 31.07.2008 and Safai Hawaldar Komal Prakash has died on 22.05.2009. As such, now there are as many as four vacancies for the post of Safai Nayak. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in view of the above development brought on record, now the ground mentioned in the counter affidavit carries no force to stay the promotion of the petitioner. 3 7. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the affidavits on record, this Court finds that nothing has been said in the counter affidavit that the promotion order passed in favour of the petitioner suffered from any illegality, as such there appears no justification on the part of the respondents to stay the promotion order of the petitioner merely on the ground that demonstrations were done by other Safai Karamcharies. Apart from this, it has also been brought on record that other posts of Safai Nayak are also vacant. 8. In the above circumstances, impugned order dated 16.02.2004, passed by the respondent No.2, staying promotion of the petitioner, is quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. (Misc. Application No. 3384 of 2009 for taking supplementary affidavit on record stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 16.12.2009 NS