IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 4046 of 2008. Decided on: 7th September, 2010. Ishwar Dass Banta. …Petitioner. -Versus- The State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. A.K. Dhiman, Advocate vice Mr. R. Bharti, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 and 2. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Respondents No. 3 to 7 are exparte. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The present petition has been filed with the following reliefs: “i) The Respondents be directed to promote the applicant to the post of Block Primary Education Officer by placing him over and above the Respdts. No. 3 to 7. ii) The Respondents be directed to grant him the seniority in the promotional post from the date when his immediate junior was promoted as such. iii) The Respondents be also directed to grant all the consequential benefits to the applicant. 2. The respondents have filed the reply. It has come in the reply that the issue of seniority was pending in O.A. No. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2124 of 1994, titled as Sibhash Chand and Ors. Versus State of H.P. and Ors. In fact, the petitioner was also one of the parties in O.A. No. 2124 of 1994. The same has been decided by this Court on 24.03.2009. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus: “In the present case the petitioners on the basis of newly assigned seniority as per Annexures A-4 and A-5 were further promoted to the higher posts. These promotions were also put to jeopardy after the issuance of Annexures A-1 and A-2. The petitioners have neither misrepresented nor have played any fraud on the State of Himachal Pradesh for the issuance of Annexures A-4 and A-5 respectively. The valuable rights which have accrued to them could not be destroyed by the issuance of Annexures A-1 and A-2. The seniority is an important facet in the service jurisprudence. In few cadres, the promotions are effected merely on the basis of seniority. It is not disputed by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General that the petitioners were ever heard before the issuance of Annexures A-1 and A-2. There are no cogent and convincing reasons forthcoming why the decision taken vide Annexure A-3 has been revised on the basis of Annexure A-1. Moreover, once the petitioners have been held entitled to the grant of pay for the untrained period, there is no reason why this period should not be counted for the purpose of seniority as well. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, the petition is allowed. The impugned Anneuxures A-1 and A-2, dated 21.9.1993 and 12.10.1993 respectively are quashed and set aside. There will, however, be no order as to costs.” 3. Consequently, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Block Primary Education Officer on the basis of the principles laid down by this Court in CWP(T) No. 2205 of 2008, dated 24.3.2009, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge September 07, 2010. (bhupender)