JUDGMENT Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. The petitioner has started her service carrier as JBT teacher(untrained) on 20.9.1965. Subsequently, she successfully undergone JBT training and completed the same on 26.8.1969. In the seniority list of JBT teachers of Distt. Sirmour, she was placed at Serial No. 587. On 30th June, 1994 vide office order No. Es-3/94(Pry. Edu)(Pro.) 10025-461 dated 30th June, 1994, Annexure A-14 few of her juniors were promoted as Head Teacher. Aggrieved thereby, she made representation dated 15.1.2003, Annexure A-9 and subsequently Annexure A-10 with the requested to promote her as Head Teacher from the date of her juniors have been promoted and thereafter as Centre Head Teacher w.e.f. 14.9.1998 again, when her juniors were promoted as such. She allegedly was promoted as Head Teacher vide order dated 5.4.1995, however, it is the case of the petitioner that no such order was ever received by her. She, however, was ultimately promoted, as Head Teacher vide office order No. BS-3/97-98 (Pry. Edu.) 5477-78 dated 14.10.1998, Annexure A-1, during the pendency of Original Application No. 1248/2008, filed before the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal. She allegedly was made to understand at the time of her promotion as Head Teacher vide order Annexure A-1 to assign her due seniority in the cadre of Centre Head Teacher, but of no avail, hence, made representation Annexure A-3, dated 24.12.1999 claiming thereby due placement in the seniority list of Centre Head Teacher and to promote her notionally as Centre Head Teacher, at least from the date, her juniors were promoted as such. She made another representation Annexure A-4 with similar submissions. Her representations were considered by the 3rd respondent and vide office order dated 18.1.2001, Annexure A-5, while accepting the same, she was placed at Serial No. 12-A of the seniority list of C.H.Ts as is apparent from Annexure A-6 also. The petitioner came to be promoted as Centre Head Teacher also vide order dated 15th June, 2001, Annexure A-7, whereas, the persons junior to her were already promoted as such, vide order dated 14.9.1998, Annexure A-15. 2. The petitioner came to be promoted as Centre Head Teacher also vide order dated 15th June, 2001, Annexure A-7, whereas, the persons junior to her were already promoted as such, vide order dated 14.9.1998, Annexure A-15. 2. Aggrieved by her promotion to the post of Head Teacher and subsequently as Centre Head Teacher, much later to that of her juniors, she preferred the representation dated 24.9.2001 Annexure A-8, dated 15.1.2003, Annexure A-9 and dated 2.7.2003 Annexure A-10 with the request to promote her as Head Teacher from the date of promotion of her juniors and after assigning her due place in the seniority list of Head Teacher to promote her further as Centre Head Teacher, however, notionally with all consequential benefits except for salary. The representation so submitted by her came to be considered by the 3rd respondent, who however, rejected the same and the decision so taken was conveyed to her vide letter dated 6.11.2004, Annexure A-1. 3. She made another representation Annexure A-12 dated 18.9.2005. The 3rd respondent had considered the same also, however, rejected vide order dated 1st April, 2006, Annexure A-13 which reads as follows: “Refer to your letter no.S.B.-67/05-05/285 dated 22.09.2005 vide which the representation of Smt. Nirmal Aggarwal CHT GPS Jamli was forwarded by you. It is to inform you that the case has been studied thoroughly in accordance with the representation of the teacher. The orders already passed in this case vide letter no. ES-21/2004(Pry.Edu.) 8263-64 dated 6.11.2004 still stand and there is no reason for any change in the orders. The concerned may be informed accordingly. The Service Book is being returned herewith.” Sd/- Deputy Director (Elementary Education) District Sirmour, Nahan (HP).” 4. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner had preferred this writ petition initially in the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal with the following prayers: “(i) xxxx (ii) That the impugned order annexure A-11 and Annexure A-13 may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to promote the applicant as C.H.T. and Block Primary Elementary Education Officer with all consequential benefits. (iii) That the arrears of salary in pursuant to the promotion of the applicant as CHT and Block Primary Elementary Education Officer from due date be paid to the applicant along with interest.” 5. This petition on the abolition of the Tribunal, however, came to be transferred to this Court. (iii) That the arrears of salary in pursuant to the promotion of the applicant as CHT and Block Primary Elementary Education Officer from due date be paid to the applicant along with interest.” 5. This petition on the abolition of the Tribunal, however, came to be transferred to this Court. The respondents did not file any reply ever since institution of this writ petition till 18.11.2011, on which date this Court while granting last opportunity by way of indulgence and as a special case ordered as follows:- “Notice in the petition was issued on 12.12.2006. Yet, in spite of several opportunities afforded to the State, reply has not been filed. On the oral request of Mr. R.M. Bisht, learned Dy. Advocate General, by way of indulgence last opportunity is afforded to the State to file reply. Needful be positively done within a period of four weeks from today. It be also clarified as to whether persons junior to the petitioner were accorded benefits of promotion etc., which prima facie appears to be evident from Annexures A-14 and A-15 and reason for not according such benefits to the petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that she was deprived of the benefits in spite of the fact that respondents had assigned seniority, correctly in terms of order dated 18.1.2001 (Annexure A-5). List on 5.1.2012.” 6. Consequently, reply to this petition was filed. The defence of the respondents, as emerges from perusal of para No. 3 and 6(iii) of the reply, on merits, reads as under: “3. That in reply to this para it is submitted that as per the information received from the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Sirmour, the petitioner was promoted in the year 1995, however, she is trying to setup that promotion order was not served to her. It is further submitted that the promotion order dated 05.04.1995 of the petitioner vide which she was promoted and figures at Serial No. 06 against seniority No. 587 and was posted at Govt. Primary School, Koti Dhiman. Further the orders by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Nahan were transmitted through Peon/ Messanger Book to Centre Head Teacher Cantt. & Girls Nahan on 06.04.95. It is further submitted that the petitioner was serving in Govt. Primary School, Dhabon Nahan which was under Centre School Cantt. Nahan. Primary School, Koti Dhiman. Further the orders by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Nahan were transmitted through Peon/ Messanger Book to Centre Head Teacher Cantt. & Girls Nahan on 06.04.95. It is further submitted that the petitioner was serving in Govt. Primary School, Dhabon Nahan which was under Centre School Cantt. Nahan. Hence the contention of the petitioner that she has been deprived of the benefit of promotion to the next higher post is not tenable as the respondents had already promoted the petitioner. 6.) (iii) That in reply to this para it is submitted that, since the petitioner ignored the orders of her promotion dated 05.04.1995, the condition of de-barring becomes automatically applicable which was to persist till 5 years as per the condition prevalent at the relevant time. Even though the Department has favoured the petitioner and instead of 5 years she had been promoted after 3 years i.e. on 14.10.1998. It is further submitted that considering the case of the petitioner as left out and subsequent change in the seniority from No.104 to 12-A on dated 18.01.2001 was a factual error as the order dated 05.04.1995 could not be considered at that time. It is further submitted that all the representations of the petitioner had been considered and decided in accordance with facts. The matter of previous promotion in 1995 was also confirmed during deciding the representation of the petitioner.” 7. In view of self-contradictory contentions, i.e., on the one hand, the petitioner was assigned seniority in the cadre of Centre Head Teacher, as per her entitlement and on the other hand, her claim for promotion, firstly as Head Teacher and subsequently as Centre Head Teacher from the date her juniors, was declined, therefore, during the course of arguments, at the request of learned Additional Advocate General, this petition was adjourned for production of records, vide order which reads as follows:- “The records pertaining to consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner for assigning her due place in seniority list has not been produced. Same be produced on the next date of hearing. The records, if any, in respect of the service of order of promotion, dated 5.4.1995 on the petitioner may also be produced on the next date of hearing.” 8. However, on the next date, the requisite record again was not made available for perusal of this Court. Same be produced on the next date of hearing. The records, if any, in respect of the service of order of promotion, dated 5.4.1995 on the petitioner may also be produced on the next date of hearing.” 8. However, on the next date, the requisite record again was not made available for perusal of this Court. Whatever record produced was perused, however, there was nothing therein about the consideration of the representation of the petitioner qua assigning seniority to her and also the so called order of her promotion as Head Teacher dated 5.4.1995, nor peon books to establish the service of that order upon her produced before the Court. The order dated 5.4.1995, however, was available in such records. 9. It is in this backdrop, I have heard learned counsel on both sides and also gone through the record. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner was at Serial No. 587 of the seniority list of the JBT Teachers. The persons junior to her were initially promoted vide office order dated 13.6.1994, Annexure A-14 as Head Teacher and thereafter subsequently as Centre Head Teacher vide office order dated 14.9.1998, Annexure A-15, and despite order dated 18.11.2011 of this Court referred supra, no clarification qua the promotion of her juniors is forth coming in reply to the writ petition. Otherwise also, orders Annexures A-14 and A15 amply demonstrates that persons junior to the petitioner were initially promoted to the post as Head Teacher and later on as Centre Head Teacher, thereby discriminating her against similarly situated persons, in the matter of her promotion and other consequential benefits. The only explanation that she did not join her duties pursuant to the order of her promotion dated 5.4.1995, is neither plausible nor reasonable for the reason that while the petitioner has categorically denied the receipt of any such order from the respondents, what to speak of production of any record qua service of the so called order of her promotion upon her, despite opportunities granted during the course of hearing even failed to place on record the copy of such order also. Otherwise also, the petitioner was entitled to be promoted as Head Teacher w.e.f. 13.6.1994 when the persons junior to her were promoted as such. Otherwise also, the petitioner was entitled to be promoted as Head Teacher w.e.f. 13.6.1994 when the persons junior to her were promoted as such. No doubt, she was promoted as Head Teacher vide order dated 14.11.1998, Annexure A-1 and may be with an understanding that she will be given the seniority etc., from the due date, as it is for this reason she seems to have withdrawn the Original Application bearing No. 1248 of 2008, as is apparent from the perusal of order Annexure A-2. However, she was not placed appropriately as Head Teacher initially and when represented, was assigned seniority at Serial No. 12-A, as has come in the office order Annexure A-5, however, without any consequential benefits because she was given the promotion as Centre Head Teacher from June, 2001 vide order, Annexure A-7. When she has been assigned due place in the seniority, she was entitled to other consequential benefits i.e., promotion as Centre Head Teacher, at least from the date of her junior were promoted. No doubt, notionally and without salary of that post, however, with other consequential benefits i.e., seniority etc,. But to the reasons best know to the respondents, this has not been done and she has been given an arbitrary and discriminatory treatment. The rejection of the representations she submitted vide order dated 6.11.2004, Annexure A-11 read with order dated 1.4.2006, Annexure A-13 is also highly illegal and against all canons of natural justice for the reason that in the absence of any record suggesting that so called order dated 5.4.1995 was served upon her and that it is she, who intentionally and deliberately failed to report for duty as Head Teacher, in Govt. Primary School, Koti Dhiman (Dadhoo), allegedly a hard area, where she was posted on her promotion as Head Teacher. Mere assertions to this effect in reply to the writ petition cannot be believed as gospel truth and deny the just and legitimate claim laid before this Court by the petitioner on the basis thereof. The order of rejection of her representations Annexures A-11 and A-13 are thus, illegal and factually unsustainable. The petitioner on the other hand, is entitled to promotion as Head Teacher w.e.f. 13.6.1994, the date when the persons junior to her were promoted as such vide order, Annexure A-14. The order of rejection of her representations Annexures A-11 and A-13 are thus, illegal and factually unsustainable. The petitioner on the other hand, is entitled to promotion as Head Teacher w.e.f. 13.6.1994, the date when the persons junior to her were promoted as such vide order, Annexure A-14. In view of her placement at Serial No. 12-A in the seniority list, she is entitled to promotion as CHT, at least from the date of the order, when the persons junior to her were promoted as such vide order dated 14.9.1998, Annexure A-15. The petitioner is fair enough in claiming notional promotion as Head Teacher and Centre Head Teacher without asking for any monetary benefits and rather claiming only the seniority from the due date and also further promotion, if any, as Block Primary Education Officer, with all consequential benefits. In the given facts and circumstances, this Court find no reason to withhold the relief so claimed by her. 11. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, this petition succeeds and the same is allowed with the following directions: i) The petitioner shall be treated to have been promoted as Head Teacher for all intents and purposes on and w.e.f. 13.6.1994 and as Centre Head Teacher on and w.e.f. 14.9.1998, however, except for salary. ii) There shall be a direction to the respondents to consider her for promotion to the next higher post i.e., Block Primary Education Officer, notionally, however, with all consequential benefits from the date of promotion, if any, of the person junior to her. 12. The writ petition stands accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. No orders as to Costs.