- (1.) CHALLENGE in the present petition is to the order dated 19.9.2012, passed by the Secretary, Water Supply and Sanitation, Government of Punjab, whereby the representation filed by the petitioners, was rejected. The petitioners had earlier approached this court by filing CWP No. 197 of 2001, Inter -alia, claiming that their service rendered as Class -III employees, has not been considered for promotion, even though they were regularly promoted against the posts meant for their quota. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 10.1.2012, while observing as under: In the absence of any reply affidavit, it would be suffice to observe that if there were vacancies in the promotion quota and the petitioners despite their eligibility and seniority in the feeder cadre were not considered for regular promotion within their own promotional quota, there shall be some justification in their claim for retrospective promotion from the due dates. Conversely, if the petitioners were adjusted on adhoc basis against the posts, which were not meant for promotion quota or while granting them adhoc promotion the claims of their seniors was not considered, they can draw no benefit of such like stop gap arrangement towards seniority. Since the controversy raised in this case requires verification of the fact from the record, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 1 to call for the records and consider the claim of the petitioners for retrospective promotion in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The petitioners shall be at liberty to supplement their claim by submitting copies of the binding decisions of this court as well as the Supreme Court, which shall also be considered by the respondents while reconsidering the claim of the petitioners.
(2.) IN pursuance to the aforesaid order passed by this court, the petitioners made representation. Response from the department was taken, a copy whereof was supplied to the petitioners for their observation. After hearing the petitioners, the authorities rejected their claim. As is evident from the impugned order, the only claim was that some promotions were made from Clerks to Senior Assistants on completion of 18 years service on 20.4.2010. All the petitioners, except petitioner No. 5, in the present petition retired by 31.3.2010. The only claim, as is evident from the impugned order, was that had the promotions been made prior to 31.3.2010, there being large number of vacancies available, the case of the petitioners would also have been considered and they could get the promotion.
(3.) IT is not in dispute that petitioner No. 5, who is still in service, has not yet reached the stage in the seniority list, where his case for promotion as Senior Assistant could be considered, as none junior to petitioner No. 5 has been promoted as Senior Assistant. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to base his claim on any instructions or law to state that the petitioners could press the government to fill up the vacancies in promotional post even if available. In the absence thereof, to state that in case the vacancies had been filled up, which may have been existing before the retirement of petitioners No. 1 to 4, they would have got the promotion, is totally misconceived.;