Judgment Dev Darshan Sud, J. 1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner herein praying that he be promoted as Senior Assistant w.e.f. 6.2.2001 when his immediate juniors were promoted. 2. The petition was instituted in 2007 before the Administrative Tribunal. On 24.12.2007, opportunity was granted to the respondents to file reply which order was not complied with. On 10.11.2009, the petition was admitted where after it was taken up on 27.6.2011, 21.7.2011 and 16.12.2011 on which date this Court records “the case is adjourned for hearing, subject to cost of Rs.500/”. On 2.1.2012, again this Court directs “reply be now filed within ten days after paying cost of Rs.500/- List on 13.1.2012”. On 21.6.2012 it is noticed by this Court that a request was made for time of two weeks for filing reply. It is also noted that two opportunities had been granted to the respondents herein to file reply on subject of payment of Rs.500/- as costs but no action was taken by them and further last final opportunity was granted so that the respondents can not be condemned un-heard. The case then comes up on 13.7.2012 on which date again I find from the record that no reply has been filed and it is in these circumstances that this Court was constrained to order that the right to file reply by the respondents stands closed. 3. One of the consequences of the respondents not filing its reply would be that the averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition would be deemed to have been accepted because this Court has no option but to rely on the material which has been placed on the record by the petitioner. The action of the State cannot be accepted under any circumstances as being fair. Disobedience by obstinacy is writ large. There is no reason as to why the reply should and ought not to have been filed taking into consideration the fact that the respondents were granted repeated opportunities. 4. The petitioner pleads that he had served Indian Army for 16 years in the Clerical cadre and on superannuation he was registered with Ex-servicemen Cell which sponsored his name on 1.1.1997 for re-employment as a Clerk. The case of the petitioner is that he was re-employed under the Demobilized Armed Forces personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the H.P. Non-Technical Services) Rule 1972. The case of the petitioner is that he was re-employed under the Demobilized Armed Forces personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the H.P. Non-Technical Services) Rule 1972. The petitioner states that he was granted the benefit of previous military service with respect to seniority and fixation of pay. The case of the petitioner is that despite this, office order Annexure:A2 dated 6.2.2001 was issued whereby the persons junior to the petitioner were promoted. The case is that vide Annexure:A1, the petitioner was placed at serial No. 237A and his juniors stand promoted who figured at Sr. No. 280 onwards i.e. much below the petitioner. He thereafter made a representation to the respondents in which he requested for his promotion above his juniors. An office order Annexure:A4 dated 19.7.2007 was issued promoting the petitioner as Senior Assistant w.e.f 19th July, 2007. The petitioner case is that he should and ought to have been promoted from the date when his Juniors as mentioned in Annexure:A2 were promoted. There is no material on the record nor was any record shown to this Court at the time of the hearing to counter what the petitioner submits. 5. In these circumstances, this petition is allowed. A direction is issued that the petitioner shall be promoted as Senior Assistant w.e.f. 6.2.2001 with all consequential benefits including back wages and seniority. Petition is disposed of.