ORDER : 1. Petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main reliefs: “i) That the impugned memo dated 28th July, 2014 (Annexure P-14) issued by the Respondent No.2, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be allowed option for her promotion as Jr. Auditor/ Senior Asstt. from the due date with all consequential benefits.. ii) That the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to consider the case of petitioner for her promotion as Jr. Auditor/now designated as Senior Assistant under the provisions of R&P Rules, 1973 (Annexure P-2) from the date her juniors have already been promoted. iii) That the promotion order dated 18.1.2014 (Annexure P-12) as Jr. Scale Stenographer may kindly be declared null & Void.” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that the petitioner was appointed as Steno Typist in the Directorate of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Himachal Pradesh, in September, 1996 on the recommendations of HP Public Service Commission, Shimla. The petitioner joined against the post as detailed herein above on 19.9.1996 and thereafter, she was promoted to the post of Jr. Scale Stenographer in terms of R&P Rules for the post of Jr. Scale Stenographer in the Food and Supplies, vide government notification No.FDS-A(3)-4-99 dated 22.11.2003. As per aforesaid R&P Rules, wherever there are more than one channel for the promotion, option shall be taken from the person being considered for promotion. In the case at hand, respondent department before promoting the petitioner to the post of Jr. Scale Stenographer also took her option dated 27.5.2008 as is evident from Annexure R-1 adduced on record by the respondents alongwith their reply. Consequent upon aforesaid promotion, petitioner joined as Jr. Scale Stenographer on 25.9.2009 and during her such posting, she filed representation dated 19.10.2010 (Annexure P-3 ) to the department stating therein that since she is working as Jr. Scale Stenographer on probation, she is eligible for promotion as Junior Auditor. However, such request of her was not accepted by the department and department vide communication dated 25.11.2020 (Annexure P-4) apprised the petitioner that there is no provision available in the R&P Rules for promotion of the Jr. Scale Stenographer to the post of Junior Auditor. 3. Scale Stenographer on probation, she is eligible for promotion as Junior Auditor. However, such request of her was not accepted by the department and department vide communication dated 25.11.2020 (Annexure P-4) apprised the petitioner that there is no provision available in the R&P Rules for promotion of the Jr. Scale Stenographer to the post of Junior Auditor. 3. Since prayer of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Auditor was not accepted by the department, she vide communication dated 31.5.2011, requested the department to revert her back to the post of Steno Typist (Annexure P-5). Vide office order dated 4.7.2011, Directorate of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs reverted the petitioner to the post of Steno Typist, against which, she was initially appointed in September, 1996. On 17.1.2012, petitioner by way of representation represented to the department that since she stands reverted to the psot of Steno Typist and she is number one in the seniority of Steno Typist, her case may be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Auditor (Annexure P-7), however, fact remains that aforesaid representation filed by the petitioner never came to be decided, rather remained pending for one reason or the other and in the meantime, Government of Himachal Pradesh vide notification dated 4.10.2012, ordered for merger of the cadre of Junior Auditor with that of Senior Assistant (Annexure P-8). Petitioner again vide representation dated 28.12.2012 (Annexure P-9), requested the department to promote her to the post of Junior Auditor, but such prayer of her was not paid any heed. Interestingly, department totally ignoring the fact that petitioner was earlier promoted to the post of Steno Typist in September, 1996 and thereafter, she herself sought reversion from the post of Jr. Scale Stenographer, again called upon the petitioner to give option for her promotion to the post of Jr. Scale Stenographer. Vide order dated 18.1.2014, department once again promoted the petitioner to the post of Jr. Scale Stenographer, to which post, she otherwise stood promoted on 2009 and subsequently, was reverted back to the post of Steno Typist in July, 2011. Scale Stenographer, again called upon the petitioner to give option for her promotion to the post of Jr. Scale Stenographer. Vide order dated 18.1.2014, department once again promoted the petitioner to the post of Jr. Scale Stenographer, to which post, she otherwise stood promoted on 2009 and subsequently, was reverted back to the post of Steno Typist in July, 2011. Aforesaid promotion was not accepted by the petitioner and she again vide communication dated 11.4.2014, requested the department to consider her for promotion to the post of Junior Auditor but such prayer of her was rejected vide communication dated 28.7.2014, on the ground that there is no post of Junior Auditor in the department as cadre of Junior Auditor stands merged with the cadre of Senior Assistant. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this court, praying therein for the reliefs as have been taken note herein above. 4. Before ascertaining the correctness and genuineness of the merit, if any, in the case of the petitioner herein, it may be apt to take note of the fact that this court after having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, deemed it necessary to summon the record. Pursuant to order dated 29.9.2021, Mr. Aman, Clerk, has come with the records. Record perused and returned. 5. There is no dispute inter-se parties that in the year, 1996, petitioner was appointed as Steno Typist on regular basis on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission and thereafter, she on the basis of option was promoted to the post of Jr. Scale Stenographer. It is also not in dispute that petitioner herself sought her reversion from the post of Jr. Scale Stenographer to the post of Steno Typist and as such, request of her was accepted and since then, she had been regularly rendering her services in the capacity of Steno Typist. Though petitioner had been demanding, after her reversion, promotion to the post of Junior Auditor in terms of R&P Rules, but such prayer of her was not accepted and she was again ordered to be promoted to the post of Jr. Scale Stenographer in January, 2014, against which post, she otherwise stood promoted in the year, 2009. Once it is not in dispute inter-se parties that from the feeder category of Steno Typist and clerk, persons could be promoted either to the post of Junior Auditor or Jr. Scale Stenographer in January, 2014, against which post, she otherwise stood promoted in the year, 2009. Once it is not in dispute inter-se parties that from the feeder category of Steno Typist and clerk, persons could be promoted either to the post of Junior Auditor or Jr. Scale Stenographer, there appears to be merit in the case of the petitioner that once she after her reversion from the post of Jr. Scale Stenographer had made representation for her promotion to the post of Junior Auditor, the department ought to have considered the same. Interestingly, department ignoring the material fact that earlier promotion granted to the petitioner to the post of Jr. Scale Stenographer was refused by her, again promoted her to that post in January, 2014. 6. Record made available to this court clearly reveals that after petitioner’s being reverted to the post of Steno Typist from the post of Jr. Scale Stenographer, four posts of Junior Auditor were available in the department, against which, petitioner could be considered for promotion. Record/Noting i.e. N-158 to N-160, made available to this court clearly reveals that petitioner after being reverted to the post of Jr. Scale Stenographer specifically made an option that she be promoted to the post of Junior Auditor and at that time, sufficient posts of Junior Auditor were available in the department. Aforesaid noting further reveals that promotion to the post of Junior Auditor was sought to be denied to the petitioner on the ground that nomenclature of post of Junior Auditor stands changed to Senior Assistant. If it is so, even then, case of the petitioner, who at that time was eligible to be promoted to the higher post, ought to have been considered by the department. However, it appears that matter remained pending adjudication before the competent authority on one count or the other. It is not in dispute that petitioner has been rendering her services as Steno Typist on regular basis since 1996 and till date, she has not been given the due promotion. No doubt, petitioner on the basis of her option was granted promotion to the post of Jr. Scale Stenographer, but since she herself sought reversion, option, if any, exercised by her at the time of her promotion to the post of Jr. No doubt, petitioner on the basis of her option was granted promotion to the post of Jr. Scale Stenographer, but since she herself sought reversion, option, if any, exercised by her at the time of her promotion to the post of Jr. Scale Stenographer, has lost its relevance, rather department having taken note of reversion of the petitioner to the post of Steno Typist coupled with the fact that she had made fresh prayer for promotion to the post of Junior Auditor, ought to have called for fresh option, which otherwise she appears to have given as mentioned in the aforesaid noting. Once petitioner had specifically opted for promotion to the post of Junior Auditor, department ought not have denied such promotion to her on the ground that nomenclature of post of Junior Auditor, stands changed to Senior Assistant. No doubt, vide notification dated 4.10.2012 (Annexure P-8), cadre of Junior Auditor merged with that of Senior Assistant, but at the time of making representation for promotion to the post of Junior Auditor by the petitioner in the year 2011-12, posts of Junior Auditor were available upto 4.10.2012, as is clearly evident from the record made available to this court and as such, promotion to the post of Junior Auditor could not have been denied to the petitioner on the ground of merger. 7. Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that petitioner, who is on the verge of retirement, is only interested in her promotion to the higher post and she would be content and satisfied in case benefit of promotion as is being claimed by her to the higher post is given to her on notional basis till the date of merger of two cadres. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and respondents are directed to give promotion to the petitioner to the post of Junior Auditor from the date of her reversion from the post of Sr. Scale Stenographer till the date of merger of the cadre of Junior Auditor with that of Senior Assistant on the notional basis and thereafter, to the post of Senior Assistant with all the consequential benefits. Since petitioner is on the verge of retirement, needful in terms of directions contained in the judgment, shall be done by the department, expeditiously, preferably within two months. In the aforesaid terms, present petition stands disposed of. Since petitioner is on the verge of retirement, needful in terms of directions contained in the judgment, shall be done by the department, expeditiously, preferably within two months. In the aforesaid terms, present petition stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.