IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. No. 9107 of 2011. Decided on: 20th October, 2011. Chander Singh. ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …… Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. B. Nandan Vashishta, Advocate vice Mr. N.K. Sood, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. A.G. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “(i) To quash the order dated 3.9.2011 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No. 3 with further directions to the respondents to grant actual monetary benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. 14.11.2008, from which date the petitioner was ordered to be promoted as Pump Driver with the respondent department. (ii) Direction be issued to the respondents to modify office order dated 9.4.2010 (Annexure P-6), vide which the petitioner was shown to have been promoted on notional basis and further respondents be directed to grant actual monetary benefits in favour of the petitioner instead of notional benefits from the due date i.e. 14.11.2008 including due and admissible increments etc. as given to juniors and similarly 2 situated persons with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the due date till the date of actual payment. Any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may be passed in the interest of justice.” 2. We seldom find such a proper, reasoned and detailed order passed by the competent authority with regard to the claim made by a workman and, therefore, we deem it appropriate to extract below the consideration of the claim of the petitioner, as appearing in Annexure P-9, order passed by the Superintending Engineer, Water Supply & Sew. Circle, Race View Building, Shimla-3, which reads as follows: “And whereas, his claim for notional period has been considered in light of his representation dated 01.10.2003 for re-designating him as Telephone attendant and after considering he was re-designated accordingly vide order No. 897-99 dated 26.05.2004 with the rider that he would not be entitled for further promotion and loose his seniority as Assistant Pump Driver which was accepted by him at his will without any protest. However this change of designation was challenged in CWP No. 3821/2009 titled as Mohan Singh V/s State of H.P. and Hon’ble Court observed that the designation was not given by the competent authority as was void ab-initio being an rorder without jurisdiction and authority. Accordingly the designation of all such officials including petitioner was restored to the original cadre i.e. Assistant Pump Driver. Since in this 3 process of promotion the junior persons working as APD were promoted to the post of Pump Driver, therefore, the petitioner was considered for promotion as Pump Driver and promoted vide order dated 15.02.2010 and consequent office order dated 23.02.2010 and pay was fixed vide order dated 09.04.2010 as Pump Driver. Having not worked on the post of Pump Driver during above said period was treated as notional basis keeping in view the Supreme Court decisions in other cases. Had the petitioner not opted/represented for the post of Telephone attendant, he would have been promoted along with the others with financial benefit for the period he would have worked as a Pump Driver. Moreover the petitioner under the garb of changed designation as Telephone attendant remained at one station and did not remain subject to transfer as his fellow APD’s were subjected to transfer. Thereby he got undue benefit of remaining posted at one station for a period more than 6 years.” 3. Now, that the petitioner has been granted the notional benefit from November, 2008, he should be more than happy, since the same is done only on account of the decision of this Court that the re-designation was not proper. However, as far as the petitioner is concerned, he had been in the post of Telephone Attendant till February, 2010, when the order was revised as per Annexure P-2. Having enjoyed the benefits in that post, the petitioner when granted retrospective benefits in the parent post, he can not claim the 4 actual benefits of that post. Hence, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. October 20, 2011 (bhupender/K.Guleria)