Shishna Devi v. State of H.P & Ors.

The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 Yes For the Petitioner For the Respondents : : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge ( Oral ) The petitioner in the petition has prayed a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Lecturer with effect from

10.8.1998 from which date the juniors to the petitioner were promoted, with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority, etc. The further case of the petitioner is that she was initially appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (Medical). The petitioner at the time of appointment was already possessing the qualification of Master in Economics. As per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, persons with minimum service as Trained Graduate Teacher having master(cid:146)s degree on the said date are further entitled for promotion to the post 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 of Lecturer. The petitioner was expecting that as per her seniority, she will be promoted as Lecturer, however, the petitioner vide order dated

11.5.2000 was promoted to the post of Lecturer against the Trained Graduate Teacher(cid:146)s seniority list number 7036. The persons junior to petitioner in the seniority list of Trained Graduate Teachers were already promoted as Lecturer w.e.f. 10.8.1998. It appears due to negligence the case of the petitioner was not sent for consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee despite her being eligible for promotion the year 1998. The petitioner made several representations and one of such representation was duly recommended by the Principal concerned vide letter dated 29.11.2005. The respondents despite the recommendations made by the Principal did not consider the case of the petitioner for promotion. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the petition.

The respondents have filed the reply. It has been stated in the reply that the petitioner has been promoted vide office order dated

18.3.2009 by respondent No.2 to the post of Lecturer Economics from the date her juniors were promoted w.e.f. 10.8.1998 on notional basis, financial benefits will be given to the petitioner from the date of her actual joining as Lecturer i.e. 10.1.2000. The respondents have prayed for disposal of the writ petition in view of the reply filed by them. The petitioner by way of supplementary affidavit has placed on record relevant extract of Recruitment and Promotion Rules.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In view of the stand taken by the respondents in the reply the dispute between the parties lies in narrow compass. The petitioner is claiming her promotion as Lecturer with all consequential benefits such as pay, 3 seniority etc. w.e.f. 10.8.1998 the date her juniors were promoted as Lecturers. The respondents in the reply have stated that in fact the petitioner has been promoted w.e.f. 10.8.1998 on notional basis but financial benefits will be given to the petitioner from the date of her actual joining as Lecturer i.e. 10.1.2000.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in similar situation in CWP (T) No. 1047 of 2008 on 15.3.2010 a coordinate Bench of this Court after noticing Union of India and others Vs. K.V.Jankiraman and others (1991) 4 SCC 109, has directed the respondents to release monetary benefits in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.5.2003 with all consequential benefits. In CWP (T) No. 1047 of 2008 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-II vide office order dated 24.12.2004. This promotion was made on notional basis. He was not given monetary benefits w.e.f. 1.5.2003. The petitioner filed CWP (T) No. 1047 of 2008. The court allowed the monetary benefits to the petitioner vide judgment dated 15.3.2010 w.e.f. 1.5.2003.

The petitioner in the present case has been ultimately promoted as Lecturer w.e.f. 10.8.1998 the date from which the petitioner is claiming her promotion as Lecturer but she was not given salary etc. from that date. In view of Raj Handa (supra), the respondents 1, 2 are directed to pay salary to petitioner as Lecturer w.e.f. 10.8.1998 and also seniority to petitioner as Lecturer w.e.f.