IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 6708 of 2008. Decided on: 12.11.2010. __________________________________________________ Shri Ram Dass … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. for respondents No. 1 & 2. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. (Oral). The petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs: “7 (i). That the respondents 1 & 2 may be directed to consider the promotion of the applicant to the post of Clerk from the back date when junior persons to the applicant were promoted and the posts were available. (ii). That the respondents may be further directed to give all consequential benefits to the applicant as a result of his promotion to the post of clerk w.e.f. the date his juniors were so promoted and assign seniority to the applicant above respondents No. 3 to 6 as these respondents were absorbed from other Departments.” 2. In the reply on behalf of official respondents No. 1 & 2, the following stand is taken vide paras 6 (ii), (iv) and (v):- 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 6 (ii). Admitted, as a matter of record. The surplus peons of octroi Department of Municipal Committees who were absorbed in the Department have been rightly placed junior to the applicant even though their date of appointments were earlier to the applicant in Municipal Committees. But the persons so absorbed in the departments were not given the benefit of seniority from their date of appointments in the Municipal Committees and they were assigned seniority from the date of joining in the department. (iv). In reply to this para it is submitted that Shri Budhi Singh and Shyam Lal who were junior to the applicant in the seniority list of peons were promoted as clerks on adhoc/officiating basis and it was purely a stop gap arrangement to run the work of department smoothly and these persons were reverted to their original post, i.e. peon on 25.7.1990. Moreover, the promotion as adhoc/officiating basis is no promotion. It is a stop gap arrangement for the smooth functioning of the department. The department later on filled up sevel posts of clerks on adhoc basis from Class-IV employees vide order dated 2.9.1993 annexed as Annexure A-3 with the Original Application and these class-IV employees were promoted on regular basis vide order dated 7th October, 1994 annexed as Annexure A-4 with the Original Application. From the perusal of these orders 3 it is crystal clear that the applicant who is at serial No.4 has been placed senior to his junior Shri Budhi Singh and Shyam Lal, who are at serial No. 6 & 7 respectively. It is also submitted here that the final seniority list of clerks was issued by the department wise before the issuance of the seniority list as it stand as on 1.1.1999. But the applicant never made any representation against the seniority lists so issued earlier. Hence, the claim of the applicant is baseless, as he has been assigned seniority above to Shri Budhi Singh & Shyam Lal. (v). Admitted as a matter of fact. The four persons who were promoted on regular basis as clerk vide order dated 7th October, 1994 as mentioned by the applicant in the original application have been rightly placed senior to the applicant in the final seniority list of clerks as it stood on 1.1.1999 as these persons had joined the government service earlier to the applicant as is clear from the date of appointment mentioned in the seniority lists. It is also relevant to mention here that these persons were absorbed from the Industries Department tailoring centres and they were to be assigned the seniority from their date of appointment in the tailoring centres. Whereas the surplus peons of octroi department of Municipal Committees were to be assigned seniority from their date of joining I n the department as the employees of the Boards and Corporations who are absorbed in the Govt. Departments are not provided seniority from the date of their appointments in the Boards/Corporat6ions. Moreover, the department is initiating separate seniority list for the Chowkidar-cum-peon of the tailoring centre observed in the department and the 4 peons appointment of the department and their combined seniority list is taken into account for the promotion to the post of clerks.” 3. It is apparent on a plain reading of the pleadings on behalf of the parties particularly those set up on behalf of the official respondents No. 1 & 2, vide para 6 (iv) of the reply that some persons junior to the petitioner, namely; Shri Budhi Singh and Shri Shyam Lal were promoted as Clerks, vide office order, dated 3.5.1989, Annexure A-5, albeit the fact that such promotions were on ad hoc/officiating basis. It is further manifest that on the representation of the petitioner these ad hoc/officiating promotions were done away with on 25.7.1990. However, the fact remains that the aforesaid Shri Budhi Singh and Shri Shyam Lal worked in the higher posts of Clerk during the period 3.5.1989 to 25.7.1990. It is another matter that thereafter the department filled up 7 posts of Clerks including the petitioner on ad hoc basis from class-IV employees, vide order, dated 2.9.1993, Annexure A-3, who were lateron promoted on regular basis, vide order dated 7.10.1994, Annexure A-4. However, the fact remains that the petitioner, who was senior to the said Shri Budhi Singh and Shri Shyam Lal was deprived of the benefit of ad hoc/officiating promotion during the aforesaid period of 3.5.1989 to 25.7.1990. 4. In view of the above, the petition is partly allowed with a direction to the respondents to order notional promotion of the petitioner as Clerk on ad hoc/officiating basis with effect from 3.5.1989 to 25.7.1990 and grant all the consequential financial benefits to him in this regard within a period of three months from 5 today along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum subject to the petitioner furnishing a copy of this judgment within one month from today, failing which interest at the higher rate of 12% per annum shall be payable. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. November 12, 2010. (cr)