IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 4534 of 2008(OA No.1638 /1997) Date of Decision : 25.6.2010. Dhani Ram …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others. ..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Ms. Salochna Kaundal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, DAG, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The petitioner in addition to other prayers has made the following prayers:- “ (i) That the reversion of the applicant as affected by Notification dated 17.8.96 be held illegal and be quashed/set-aside alongwith all consequential benefits. (ii) That the Notification, Annexure A-3 dated 17.8.1996 be declared illegal and be set aside alongwith the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee and applicant be held entitled for all consequential benefits.” 2. The respondent No.2 alongwith affidavit dated 31.5.2010 has placed on record notification dated 30.3.1999 Annexure RX which is as follows: 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 “In partial modification of this department notification of even number, dated 30.11.1998, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, is pleased to order the promotion of Shri Dhani Ram to the post of Superintendent Grade-I (Gazetted Class-II) in the department of Animal Husbandry in the pay scale of Rs.2200-70-2550-75-3000-100-4000 (Pre-revised) with effect from 16.8.1996 to 29.11.1998 on notional basis on the basis of the seniority.” 3. The notification dated 30.3.1999 indicates that on the recommendation of the DPC, the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-I (Gazetted Class-II) in the department of Animal Husbandry in the pay scale of Rs.2200-70-2550-75-3000- 100-4000 (Pre-revised) with effect from 16.8.1996 to 29.11.1998 on notional basis on the basis of the seniority. It has been submitted on behalf of respondents 1, 2 that petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the notification dated 30.3.1999 in terms of the notification. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to monetary and other consequential benefits also after promotion of petitioner as Superintendent Grade-I. 4. The perusal of notification dated 17.8.1996 Annexure A-2 indicates that consequent upon the promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs. 2200 – 4000 (Gazetted Class-II) in the Department of Animal Husbandry on regular basis, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh was pleased to terminate the adhoc appointment of the petitioner as Superintendent Grade-I ordered vide Notification No. Ahy.B(2)-2/82 dated 21.3.1991, with immediate effect. The implication of notification dated 30.3.1999 is that petitioner stands 3 promoted on regular basis to the post of Superintendent Grade-I (Gazetted Class-II) in the department of Animal Husbandry in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-70-2550-75-3000-100-4000 (Pre-revised) with effect from 16.8.1996 to 29.11.1998. The petitioner now stands retired. 5. It is not the case of the petitioner that by following due procedure he was promoted as Superintendent Grade-I on 21/22.2.1991 but such promotion was only given nomenclature of adhoc promotion. According to respondents the petitioner was promoted as Superintendent Grade-I (Gazetted) on adhoc basis being senior most Grade-II Superintendent by dint of jumping seniority. The seniority position of the petitioner came down to No.9 in terms of the H.P.Govt. letter dated 27.3.1997 at the time of regular filling up of the post of Superintendent Grade-I. Thus petitioner was given wrong benefit of jumping seniority at the time adhoc promotion as Superintendent Grade-I. The petitioner was earlier working on adhoc basis as Superintendent Grade-I which was terminated vide notification dated 17.8.1996. In these circumstances the petitioner is not entitled for counting of adhoc service as Superintendent Grade-I prior to 16.8.1996 on the post of Superintendent Grade-I. 6. The respondents 1, 2 have not assigned any reason why the petitioner is not entitled to monetary and other consequential benefits of the post of Superintendent Grade-I (Gazetted class-II) even though the petitioner stands promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-I (Gazetted class-II) vide notification dated 30.3.1999. In absence of reasons, the respondents 1, 2 cannot deprive the petitioner monetary and other consequential benefits to which the petitioner is entitled to after his promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I 4 (Gazetted Class-II) w.e.f. 16.8.1996. Accordingly the petition is allowed. It is held that the petitioner is entitled to all monetary and other consequential benefits of the post of Superintendent Grade-I (Gazetted Class-II) after his promotion to such post w.e.f. 16.8.1996. The needful be done within a period of four months from today. The petition stands disposed of. ( Kuldip Singh ), June 25, 2010 Judge. (GR)