C.W.P. No. 233 of 1986 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 233 of 1986 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.3.2011 Devki Prashad Dhanuka .. Petitioner v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Mayank Khosla, Advocate for Mr. Sudershan Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present writ petition is for a direction to respondent No. 1 to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Officer in `A' Class Municipalities in Haryana. The writ petition was admitted on 28.5.1986. Thereafter, C.M. No. 623-A of 1992 was filed by the petitioner claiming that he made a representation dated 28.11.1991 to the Director, Local Bodies, Haryana claiming that his name for promotion to the post of Executive Officer in `A' Class Municipal Committee be considered against a vacant post. It was further stated by the counsel that a post of Executive Officer was lying vacant since October, 1991. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, on 20.2.1992, this court directed that the aforesaid representation filed by the petitioner be decided within a period of six weeks from the receipt of copy of this order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thereafter the petitioner was promoted w.e.f. 19.2.1992. The claim in the writ petition is that the petitioner should be deemed to be promoted from 15.2.1982 after the Haryana Municipal Services (Integration, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1982 C.W.P. No. 233 of 1986 [2] came into force, which provided 50% quota for direct recruitment and 50% for promotion from the Secretaries working in `A' Class Municipality. It was further stated that the petitioner has already retired from service in the year 1995. However, learned counsel for the petitioner was categoric in stating that no person junior to him was promoted prior to his promotion as Executive Officer in `A' Class Municipality. Considering the aforesaid facts, where no person junior to the petitioner was promoted prior to him, I do not find any merit in the claim made by the petitioner that he should be given retrospective promotion. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 8.3.2011 mk