NANDI VERDHAN Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
Ajay Mohan Goel, J. -
(1.)By way of this petition, which stood filed by the petitioner before the learned Erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrate Tribunal and which after abolition of the learned Tribunal, stands transferred to this Court, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(a) quash the impugned order A-5 issued arbitrarily, malafide and illegally by the respondents;
(b) Direct the respondents to consider and promote the applicant to the post of Incharge-Technical from the date the post is lying v vacant with all the consequential benefits and arrears of salary etc. alongwith interest thereon @ 18% p.a."
(2.)Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:-
The case of the petitioner was that he was initially appointed as Radio Instructor in the year 1968 and he joined as such on 21.06.1968. According to the petitioner, who was 58 years old at the time when the Original Application was filed by him, since his initial appointment, he had not been given any promotion by the Department, though he was due for retirement with effect from 28.02.2006. It was further the case of the petitioner that opportunities for promotion though available to the post of Incharge-Technical, respondents were not promoting him to the post in issue, though five posts of Incharge-Technical were lying vacant in the respondent-Department and there were only five candidates available for being promoted against the posts in issue. It was further the case of the petitioner that despite the fact that five promotional posts were available, respondent-Department had recommended only two names, thus depriving the petitioner of his legitimate claim as well as constitutional and fundamental right of being considered for promotion. It was further the case of the petitioner that earlier also, Shri Ravinder Singh and Shri Subhash Gupta, both Technical Instructors, had filed a writ petition in this Court, claiming reliefs similar to that being claimed by the petitioner, which petitions on transfer to the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, were finally decided by the learned Tribunal on 23.06.2000, vide Annexure A-3 and pursuant to the directions so issued, Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened and both the officers names hereinabove were duly promoted vide order dated 04.07.2002.
(3.)According to the petitioner, earlier also, officer junior to him stood promoted against the post of Technical Officer, while the petitioner was ignored. In this background, petitioner had earlier filed O.A. No.1257 of 2005, titled as Nandi Verdhan Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Another, in the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrate Tribunal and on the request of the petitioner, learned Tribunal ordered the Original Application to be treated as a representation, so that the case of the petitioner for promotional post could be considered from retrospective date. However, the representation of the petitioner stood rejected arbitrarily by the respondent, leading to the filing of the present case.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.