MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition was filed in the year 1995 by as many as eight petitioners, who were working on the post of Class-IV employees with the prayer that respondents be directed to promote them on the post of LDC w.e.f. 7.8.1980 and when their juniors were so promoted. Shri Ashwani Jaiman, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of Babu Lal Gupta Vs. RSEB & Ors. : SB Civil Writ Petition No.383/1982 decided on 13.5.1991 and argued that Babulal Gupta too was senior to Kailash Chand and Shikhar Chand, who were junior to him and this Court allowed his writ petition. Learned counsel submitted that RSEB amended the rules of promotion on 1.3.1978 and introduced a new system, which was subjected to challenge by affected parties before this Court. The RSEB vide resolution dated 29.2.1980 restored the original position and decided to withdraw the said amendment. The former amendment notification was issued on 16.7.1980, but it was notified on 4.8.1980. The promotion order was passed on 7.8.1980 under the old rules. According to relevant rules in forced at that date, petitioners and Babu Lal Gupta were senior to them and, therefore, they should have been given preference for promotion. This Court allowed the writ petition of Babu Lal Gupta. Petitioners approached this Court earlier by filing SBCWP No.173/94 and No.938/94, which were decided respectively on 28.1.1994 and on 28.2.1994. This Court taking note of the aforesaid arguments made observation favourable to the petitioners and then required them to make a representation to the respondents, who were directed to examine the matter of the petitioners in the light of judgment of this Court in Babu Lal Gupta and pass appropriate order within two months. The respondents however rejected their representation, therefore, this writ petition was filed. Leaned counsel submitted that respondents then decided to revert Shri Kailash Chand Sharma and Shri Shikhar Chand Agrawal. Both of them have filed SBCWP No.1608/94 and SBCWP No.5872/94 respectively, which were allowed by judgment of this Court on 18.5.2001 and their reversion orders were quashed and set aside. The respondents were filed appeal against the aforesaid judgment of leaned Single Bench i.e. DB Civil Special Appeal No.674/2001, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.9.2005. It is contended that during the pendency of writ petition, petitioners were promoted on the post of LDC, but that was much later. The respondents ought to promote the petitioners as LDC w.e.f. 7.8.1980 when the juniors were so promoted in the light of judgment, which is what was held by this Court in Babu Lal's case. Shri Sandeep Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that promotions were wrongly granted to Kailash Chand and Shikhar Chand and of that wrong should not be perpetuated. Learned counsel however could not distinguish the case of petitioners from that of Babulal. In the result, this writ petition is allowed for the reasons aforestated and the analogy adopted by this Court in the case of Babulal. The respondents were directed to grant promotions to the petitioners w.e.f. 7.8.1980, the date on which such promotions were granted to Shikhar Chand Agarwal and Kailash Chand Sharma. Petitioners would be entitled to all consequential benefits. Compliance of this judgment be made within three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents.MUKESH_C_;