IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No.30 of 2008 Decided on: March 5, 2009 High Court of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Padam Chand Sharma …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. Respondent Padam Chand Sharma, in person. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) In the year 1983, there used to be six posts of Readers on the establishment of High Court of Himachal Pradesh. In the matter of pay and allowances of the employees of the State of Himachal Pradesh and the High Court, the State of Himachal Pradesh follows the State of Punjab. In the year 1983, Government of Punjab created posts of Court Secretaries on the establishment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a Pay-scale higher than that of Readers and the number of the posts was equivalent to 25 per cent posts on the cadre of Readers and equal number of posts of Readers were kept in abeyance. In other words, the posts of Court Secretaries were created out of the posts on the cadre strength of Readers. The High Court of Himachal Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Pradesh wrote to the Government for creation of two posts of Court Secretaries, out of six posts, on the same analogy as the Punjab Government had created. High Court made the reference to the Government on 11th November, 1983, requesting that the posts of Court Secretaries be created with effect from 23rd August, 1983, the date from which the Punjab Government had created posts of Court Secretaries, on the establishment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Matter remained pending with the Government for quite some time. In the meanwhile, two of the Readers, already working in the High Court, filed writ petitions, seeking a direction to the Government for creation of the posts of Court Secretaries. During the pendency of those writ petitions, Government created two posts of Court Secretaries, vide notification dated 7th January, 1987, with effect from the date of the filling-up of the posts, and two posts of Readers were ordered to be kept in abeyance from the date the posts of Court Secretaries were filled up. Writ petitions filed by two of the Readers, as aforesaid, came to be decided by this Court on 19th July, 1989. The State Government was directed to reconsider the question of sanctioning the creation of the posts of Secretaries and Court Secretaries, with effect from the date suggested, i.e. 23rd August, 1983. The Government went in appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, against the judgment of this Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in the year 1997. Thereafter, in compliance with the judgment, dated 19th July, 1989, the Government of Himachal Pradesh created two posts …3… of Court Secretaries, with effect from 23rd August, 1983, in modification of the earlier notification dated 7th January, 1987. This was done on 11th April, 1997. After the issuance of this notification of 1997, respondent filed a writ petition seeking grant of benefit of salary and allowances, in respect of posts of Court Secretary, with effect from the date of creation of the posts, i.e. 23rd August, 1983. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and directed the High Court to consider the case of the respondent for promotion to the post of Court Secretary, with effect from 23rd August, 1983, alongwith other incumbents (of the posts of Reader) and, if he is found suitable, to given him the consequential enhanced retiral benefits, but not to pay him anything on account of arrears of salary. It is against this judgment of the learned Single Judge that the present appeal is directed. 2. We have heard the learned counsel representing the appellant. 3. Only point that has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that when the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the posts of Court Secretaries came into force in 1986, how can the respondent or other Readers be considered for promotion to the posts of Court Secretaries, with effect from 23rd August, 1983. We do not find ourselves in agreement with the submissions of the learned counsel. It is well settled that where there exist some posts but Recruitment and Promotion Rules are not there, that cannot be a ground for not filling up those posts. Learned Single …4… Judge has noticed several judicial precedents, in respect of this proposition of law. 4. During the course of dictation of the judgment, one more point has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. He says that when the respondent had not worked as Court Secretary from 23rd August, 1983, how could he have been ordered to be considered for promotion from that date, by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any merit in this submission also. As a matter of fact, from the facts, as noticed by us hereinabove, it is clear that creation of two posts of Court Secretaries was, in substance, upgradation of posts of Readers to give incentive to the Readers, who had been stagnating as such. By the same very notification by which two posts of Court Secretaries were created, two posts of Readers had been ordered to be kept in abeyance. Moreover, the functions of the Court Secretaries and the Readers are the same. As on date, there is no post of Reader and all the posts of Readers have been converted into Court Secretaries and all the Court Secretaries are performing the same duties and functions, as were being earlier performed by the Readers. 5. In view of the abovestated position, appeal is dismissed. CMP No.190/2008 Infructuous. ( R.B. Misra ), J. March 5, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.