C.W.P. No. 2217 of 1992 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2217 of 1992 Date of Decision: Feb. 18, 2010 Kulwant Singh (died) through LR Smt. Manjit Kaur (wife) .......................................... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ................................. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Present: Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. O.P.Dabla, DAG, Punjab. ... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral) The petitioner has prayed that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 be directed to promote the petitioner as Deputy Director, Public Relations, Punjab, with effect from the date his juniors i.e. respondent Nos. 4 to 12 were promoted in supersession of the superior claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed that all consequential benefits which may accrue to him on account of the promotion be given to him. Learned counsel states that the petitioner had retired and has also expired on 13.1.2008 and now his wife Smt. Manjit Kaur has been brought on record as his legal representative. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner was C.W.P. No. 2217 of 1992 [ 2 ] originally appointed on 5.8.1954 as Pharmacist in the Health Department, Punjab. His services were confirmed in March, 1959. In order to strengthen the publicity activities at the Head-quarters, the Governor of Punjab created six posts of Information Officers in the scale of Rs.350-900 vide letter Annexure P1 in 1972. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Information Officer on 22.11.1972 and his services were regularised on completion of the probation period. The petitioner was sent on deputation as Publicity Officer with Chandigarh Administration vide letter dated 8.8.1978. It is the case of the petitioner that he is senior to respondent Nos. 4 to 12. It is further submitted that whereas respondent Nos. 4 to 12 were promoted as Deputy Directors in the Public Relations Department, Punjab, but the petitioner was ignored primarily on the ground that he was on deputation with the Chandigarh Administration. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the seniority list (Annexure P-17) which shows that the petitioner is senior to respondent No.12 Ripudaman Sarup Sharma, who was also working as Information Officer before he was promoted as Deputy Director in the Public Relations Department, Punjab. On the basis of the aforementioned facts, learned counsel submits that the petitioner was also entitled to be promoted as Deputy Director, Public Relations, Punjab, from the date his junior i.e. respondent No.12 was promoted on 21.7.1989 instead of 6.4.1992 when the petitioner was actually promoted. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was more meritorious than respondent No.12 as is clear from the Commendation Certificates (Annexures P7 to P12). Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 C.W.P. No. 2217 of 1992 [ 3 ] wherein it has been averred that promotion to the post of Deputy Director was to be made from amongst the District Public Relations Officers, Public Relations Officers and Information Officers in the ratio of 60:40. Both the cadres have separate seniority list and promotion is to be made in accordance with merit-cum-seniority. It has further been averred that as the petitioner belongs to the cadre of Information Officers, therefore, he cannot be considered senior to the officers in the cadre of District Public Relations Officers/Public Relations Officers although they had joined service after the petitioner. As far as respondent No.12 is concerned, it has been averred that although he belong to the cadre of Information Officers as shown in Annexure P-17 but as the petitioner was sent on deputation, hence he was not promoted whereas respondent No.12 was promoted as Deputy Director. A perusal of the aforementioned facts clearly shows that as far as respondent Nos. 4 to 11 are concerned, although they were junior to the petitioner but all of them belong to the cadre of District Public Relations Officers/Public Relations Officers and as the cadre of District Public Relations Officers and Information Officers is separate and there is separate seniority list, therefore, even if the petitioner had joined service prior to respondent Nos. 4 to 11, yet he could have no claim of seniority over and above respondent Nos. 4 to 11. However, as far as the claim of respondent No.12 Ripudaman Sarup Sharma is concerned, this officer belongs to the Information Officers cadre. A perusal of Annexure P-17 shows that he was junior to the petitioner but was promoted as Deputy Director in the Public Relations Department on 21.7.1989 whereas the petitioner was promoted on 6.4.1992. The respondents have categorically admitted in para 11 of their written statement that the petitioner was senior to respondent No.12. This C.W.P. No. 2217 of 1992 [ 4 ] being the position, the petitioner could not have been denied promotion with effect from 21.7.1989 i.e. the date when respondent No.12 was promoted as Deputy Director, Public Relations, Punjab. The denial of promotion to the petitioner has been wholly arbitrary and the petitioner has been robbed of his valuable right of promotion prior to the date of promotion of respondent No.12. In view of the above, I allow the writ petition and direct that the petitioner would be deemed to have been promoted to the post of Deputy Director, Public Relations, Punjab, with effect from 21.7.1989 instead of 6.4.1992. As the petitioner had superannuated and has also expired on 13.1.2008, therefore, the legal representative of the petitioner i.e. Smt. Manjit Kaur shall be entitled to all the monetary benefits and other consequential benefits on account of the notional promotion of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director, Public Relations, Punjab, with effect from 21.7.1989 i.e. the date when respondent No.12, who was junior to the petitioner, was promoted. The petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of Rs.5,000/-. 18.2.2010 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) Rupi JUDGE