IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 5693 of 2008. Decided on: 22nd October, 2010. Ved Parkash Sharma. .….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & ors. …. .. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “(a) That the respondents No.1 to 3 may kindly be directed to promote the applicant to the post of Block Development Officer, w.e.f. 25.10.94 when his junior respondent No.4 has been promoted and to place the applicant over and above the respondents No.4 to 6 in the seniority list of B.D.O’s. (b) That the respondents may be directed deemed to have accepted the option of the applicant dated 27.7.95, Annexure PH retrospectively w.e.f. 25.10.94 when for the first time the junior of the applicant has been promoted because before letter dated 25.7.1995, Annexure PG. The applicant was never asked by the respondents No.1 to 3 to give his option.” It is stated in para 6 of the reply as follows: 2 “(6) The Extension Officer (Industries) of the Department are in the feeder category for promotion in more than one channels i.e. one channel of Economic Investigators in Industries Department and the other of Block Development Officer in the Rural Development Department. In such cases options of eligible officials for their promotions to any one of higher channels are obtained in accordance with the Government Orders as contained in H.P. Govt. Department of Personnel Letter No. Per (AP-II)-A(3)-4/78 dated 24.11.1981, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure R-I. In view of these Govt. orders the applicant was asked telegraphically to send his option for promotion as Block Development Officers vide Telegram No.3-1/67- Ind-I(Estt), dated 21.9.93 copy of which is annexed as Annexure R-II. The applicant was specifically told that in case of his option for promotion as B.D.O. is not received within stipulated period his option will be treated negative. The applicant did not respond to the aforesaid telegram and such he was not considered to be interested for his promotion as Block Development Officer and names of his juniors including respondents No.4 & 5 were recommended for promotion as B.D.O.(s) on the basis of their options vide letter No.3- 1/67.Ind-I(Estt), dated 27.5.94, a copy of which is annexed at Annexure R-III (English Translation R- III/A). In view of these circumstances the applicant was not promoted as Block Development Officer and his Juniors viz Respondents No.5 & 6 were promoted to the posts of B.D.O(s) purely on ad hoc basis as per Annexure PJ of O.A.” 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the promotions were made for the second time, despite the option exercised by the petitioner as per Annexure PH, he was not considered. This aspect of the matter is not dealt 3 with in the reply affidavit. The petitioner may point out the same before the first respondent within a period of one month from today, in which case the matter will be duly examined on facts and in case the petitioner had exercised his option when the option was called for the second time and in case any promotion was made after exercise of such option without considering the case of the petitioner, appropriate action for redressal of the grievances of the petitioner shall be taken within another one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner. 2. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 22nd October, 2010 (Justice V.K. Sharma), (tr) Judge. 4