CWP No.1169 of 1989 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 05.02.2009 Nirmal Singh and another ... Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI -- Present: Mr.VB Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Yatinder Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. -- PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case. The petitioners are the employees of the PWD (B&R), Punjab. All of them were recruited/appointed as Cleaners on 01.03.1974, 1.11.1973 and 03.05.1974, respectively, in PWD (B&R) Punjab, Chandiarh Circle. Private respondent Nos. 5 to 7 were also appointed as Cleaners. Respondent No.5 was appointed on 21.05.1974, whereas respondent Nos.6 and 7 were appointed in the year 1978. Provisional seniority list was circulated vide order dated 23.12.1986, Annexure P-1. In the said seniority list, petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 were shown at Serial Nos.3, 4 and 7, respectively, whereas respondent Nos.5,6 and 7 figure at Serial Nos.5, 14 and 15, respectively. This clearly indicates that except respondent No.5, all the private respondents are junior to the petitioners, whereas respondent No.5 is senior to petitioner No.3 only. Respondent No.6 (Gurdeep Singh) was CWP No.1169 of 1989 -2- promoted as Driver on work charge basis against vacant post vide office order dated 11.03.1988 (Annexure P-2), Respondent No.7 (Balwant Singh) was allowed to operate the Tractor on provisional basis vide order dated 14.07.1988 (Annexure P-3), whereas respondent No.5 (Rulda Singh) was promoted as Driver on provisional basis vide order dated 29.1.1988 (Annexure P-4). Petitioner No.3 made a representation dated 10.08.1988 seeking promotion, through proper channel,which has not been considered till date. Similar representation was also made by petitioner No.2 vide Annexure P-6. The State-respondent in its reply while admitting the seniority position inter-se parties, has stated that respondent No.4 has promoted the private respondents by virtue of the powers conferred upon him vide Para 3.23 of the Manual of the Orders, Annexures R-1 and R-2. It is further stated that the seniority list of the Cleaners has not yet been finalised and, therefore, to make stop-gap arrangements, the promotions of the persons senior in the said division were ordered to be promoted by respondent No.4. It is the admitted position that the petitioners are senior to private respondents as is evident from the seniority list referred to above. From the reply, it appears that there is no justification for promoting the juniors even as a stop-gap arrangements and even without finalising the seniority list. The private respondents though promoted temporarily, but it appears that they have continued since then as the respondents have stated nothing about their reversion or CWP No.1169 of 1989 -3- demotion/termination of the promoted employees, at any stage. However, in the interest of justice, at this belated stage it is not proper to quash the promotion of the private respondents. However, the petitioners can be granted the similar benefit. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioners in the similar manner in which the private respondents were promoted with effect from the date the private respondents were promoted. In the event, the promotion of private respondents has been made substantive at any later stage, the petitioners shall also be entitled to the same relief and on such promotion, the petitioners will rank senior to the private respondents. It is not evident whether the private respondents were given any monetary benefits on such temporary promotions as Drivers. The official respondents will, accordingly, also consider this aspect and if the private respondents have been given any monetary benefits, the petitioners will also be given the same benefits. Let the process of consideration be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the competent authority. No costs. 05.02.2009. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES/ NO CWP No.1169 of 1989 -4-