Dina Nath & Others vs State Of H.P. & Others

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Petitioners have approached this Court by way of present petition, being aggrieved by promotion of respondent No.6, Roshan Lal, on the ground that respondent No.6 was junior to the petitioners and instead of respondent No.6, senior most petitioner amongst the petitioners was to be promoted to the post of Foreman w.e.f. the date from which their junior (respondent No.6) Roshan Lal, has been promoted vide order dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure P­4).

Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record show cause notice issued to respondent No.6 dated 15.07.2022, response thereto dated 12.08.2022, office orders dated 03.01.2023 and 04.01.2023 alongwith communication dated 07.01.2023 addressed to learned Advocate General informing that in view of change in the seniority list dated 31.12.2021 of the Pump Operators and further revision thereof on 01.08.2022 by Superintending Engineer, JSV Circle, Dharampur, respondent No.6 has been found to be junior to the all petitioners and he was promoted wrongly, and further that now their seniority has been assigned appropriately, and, therefore, vide office order dated 03.01.2023 promotion order of respondent No.6 has been withdrawn with immediate effect and thereafter, petitioner No.1, who is senior most amongst the petitioners and who are senior to the respondent No.6, has been promoted with immediate effect vide order dated 04.01.2023.

In aforesaid circumstances, it has been submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that now nothing survived to be adjudicated as the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that being senior to respondent No.6, petitioner No.1, Dina Nath, was to be promoted on the date of which Roshan Lal, respondent No.6, was promoted vide order dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure P­4) and further, as now, claim of the petitioners has been found legal, just, valid and genuine and in place of respondent No.6, petitioner No.1 Dina Nath has been promoted, petitioner Dina Nath is also entitled for promotion with retrospective effect from the date from which his junior respondent No. 6, Roshan Lal, was promoted.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of considered view that claim of the petitioner is genuine and valid and accordingly we direct to extend the benefits of promotion to petitioner Dina Nath with retrospective effect i.e. 31.03.2022 alongwith all consequential benefits including monetary benefits from 31.03.2022, the date from which his junior respondent No.6, Roshan Lal, was promoted in his place. Needful be done on or before 30.06.2023.

Petition is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms alongwith all pending application.