IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:1981/2008 Decided on: 4.3. 2009 B.K. Dutta. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. For the petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The petitioner was promoted though on ad hoc basis to the post of Incharge Coordinating New Technology (Class-I-Gazetted) vide order Annexure P-2 dated 28.2.1987. However, the petitioner was reverted without issuing any show cause notice. The respondent-State had promoted Sh. S.D. Sharma and Sh. N.S. Gazta that too on ad hoc basis. The case of Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate is that once his client has been promoted on ad hoc basis, he could not be reverted without issuing him show cause notice and he not could also be replaced by way of another ad hoc promotee. He assailed the decision of the State before the learned 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 13.12.1990 was pleased to stay the implementation of orders Annexures P-8 and P-10 dated 23.6.1990 and 31.10.1990, respectively. The petitioner on the strength of the interim order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 31.10.1990 has discharged his duties uninterruptedly till his superannuation on 31.10.1993. It may be true that when the ad hoc promotions are made the incumbents can be reverted without issuing any show cause notice, however, in the present case the petitioner who was promoted on ad hoc basis has been replaced by another promotee appointed on ad hoc basis. The petitioner had worked uninterruptedly with effect from 1987 to 1993 on the higher post. He has superannuated and is in receipt of all his retiral benefits. The writ petition can be disposed of with a simple direction that since the petitioner has worked on a higher post uninterruptedly and he has got his retiral benefits regularly, the same shall not be disturbed. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, the petition is disposed of. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 4.3.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*