Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 382 (HP)

Purshotam Lal v. State of H. P.

2006-12-01

B.S.CHAUHAN, M.R.VERMA

body2006
JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, Chairman 1. The applicant in this original application had claimed various reliefs including directions to the Respondent State to give him the appointment as Pandit in any Sanskrit College against the quota reserved for Scheduled Caste. Earlier there was some dispute qua grant of the prayer of the applicant. However, short affidavit dated July 22, 2004 was filed by the Director of Education, Himachal Pradesh, the material part whereof reads as under: That it is respectfully submitted that the applicant has been considered for promotion to the post of Pandit in the D.P.C. convened during 1995 and on recommendations of the D.P.C. 1995 he has been promoted as Pandit in 1996 and he has accordingly assumed his duties on the said date. It is however, submitted that the perusal of record shows that the applicant should have been considered for promotion to the post of Pandit in the D.P.C. convened in 1994. Therefore, it has been decided that the applicant will be given notional promotion benefits on the post of Pandit from the date from which the individuals considered by the 1994 D.P.C. has been given the promotion as Pandit. It is further submitted that there was no D.P.C. convened between 1983 and 1994 for promotion to the post of Pandits. 2. In view of the above affidavit the learned Counsel for the applicant had submitted that the only grievance for which the applicant now wants redressal is that the applicant has been deprived of the pay benefit of promotion w.e.f. March 30, 1994 till the issue of office order because he had been promoted on notional basis whereas admittedly he was entitled for consideration for promotion in the D.P.C. held in the year 1994 but was not considered. Thus non-consideration of the applicant and denial of promotion to him from the due date was as a consequence of lapse on the part of the Respondents and for their lapses the applicant could not be deprived of the salary as has been done. It is thus urged that he ought to have been promoted on regular basis with all consequential benefits instead of promoting him on notional basis and thereby depriving him of the benefit of pay. 3. It is thus urged that he ought to have been promoted on regular basis with all consequential benefits instead of promoting him on notional basis and thereby depriving him of the benefit of pay. 3. The contention of the learned Deputy Advocate General is that during the period March 30, 1994 the date from which the notional promotion has been given to the applicant till the date of his joining pursuant to the office order enclosed with the supplementary affidavit he did not work as Pandit, therefore he has rightly been given the promotion on notional basis thereby denying the pay to him. 4. It is crystal clear from the above quoted para of the supplementary affidavit that the applicant was admittedly eligible and should have been considered for promotion by 1994 D.P.C. However, he was not so considered and thus his right of being considered was denied because of no fault on his part. 5. It is not the case of the Respondents that even if the applicant would have been considered for promotion by 1994 D.P.C. there was any compelling reason to assume that he would not have been promoted. In fact by giving promotion to the applicant w.e.f. March 30, 1994 by the Respondents themselves they have by necessary implications conceded that there was no reason to deny the promotion to the applicant from the said date. Thus the applicant who was lawfully entitled for being considered and promoted w.e.f. March 30, 1994 it was not so promoted by the Respondents and thus could not discharge the duties of Pandit is no reason to deny the pay to the applicant for the period of promotion which has been treated as notional. In the facts and circumstances of the case the applicant ought to have been and should be deemed to have been promoted as Pandit w.e.f. March 30, 1994 on regular basis with all consequential benefits including the financial benefits. 6. In view of above the Respondents are directed to promote the applicant as Pandit on regular basis w.e.f. March 30,1994 with all consequential benefits and pay him admissible arrears of pay within eight weeks of the passing of this order. This original application is disposed of in terms of the above orders leaving the parties to bear their own costs.