ORDER : 1. The financial benefits, pay scale etc. attached to the post of Assistant Director (Legal) in the of Directorate of Agriculture were granted in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 23.08.2016 when he was regularly promoted to this post. Prayer of the petitioner is that these benefits ought to have been released to him w.e.f. 30.06.2014. The respondents have turned down petitioner’s request. Hence, the instant petition. 2. There is no dispute on facts: (i) Petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1800 (pre-revised) in the department of Agriculture where he joined as such on 20.08.1992. (ii) The petitioner was promoted as a Legal Assistant (Class-III) on 08.10.1997 in the pay scale of Rs. 6400-10640 (pre-revised). (iii) On 24.06.2004, petitioner was promoted to the post of Law Officer (Class-II Gazetted), but he remained in the pay scale of Rs. 6400-10640 which he had enjoyed as a Law Officer. On 23.10.2010, petitioner was given benefit of an increment under Fundamental Rule 22. (iv) In the department of Irrigation and Public Health, the post of Law Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 6400-10640 (Gazetted Class-II) was upgraded to the post of Deputy Director (Legal) (Class-I Gazetted) in the pay scale of Rs. 10025-15100 vide Notification dated 04.04.2006. On the above analogy, the petitioner also represented for upgradation of the post of Law Officer held by him in the Directorate of Agriculture to that of Deputy Direct (Legal) in the pay scale of Rs. 10025-15100. The said representation was recommended by the Director of Agriculture on 23.08.2006. While recommending petitioner’s representation, it was mentioned that the duties and responsibilities of the petitioner as Law Officer had increased manifolds, but no financial benefit of any kind was made available to him under the existing rules/instructions. That the petitioner was promoted from the post of Legal Assistant to that of Law Officer, but his scale remained the same. There was no time scale for the post of Law Officer which had put the officer (petitioner) to disadvantage. (v) On 30.06.2014, a Notification was issued upgrading the post of Law Officer in the Directorate of Agriculture to that of Assistant Director (Legal) in the pay band of Rs. 15,600-39,100+5400 as grade pay with immediate effect. The existing post of Law Officer was abolished vide same Notification. (v) On 30.06.2014, a Notification was issued upgrading the post of Law Officer in the Directorate of Agriculture to that of Assistant Director (Legal) in the pay band of Rs. 15,600-39,100+5400 as grade pay with immediate effect. The existing post of Law Officer was abolished vide same Notification. Being relevant, this Notification is being reproduced hereinafter: “Notification The Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to order the upgradation of the post of Law Officer to that of Assistant Director (Legal) in the Directorate of Agriculture, H.P. Shimla- 171005, in the pay band of Rs. 15600-39100+Rs. 5400 Grade Pay with immediate effect by abolishing the post of Law Officer.” After the issuance of Notification dated 30.06.2014, the petitioner continued to work as Assistant Director (Legal). However, the emoluments attached to the said post were not released in his favour. The respondents vide Notification dated 19.07.2016, framed R&P Rules for the post of Assistant Director (Legal) (Class-I Gazetted). Under these rules, the cadre of Assistant Director (Legal) consisted of single post. In terms of column No. 10 of R&P Rules, the post was to be filled up 100% by promotion. Column No. 11 of the rules provided that post was to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Law Officers possessing 10 years of regular service or regular combined with continuous ad-hoc service, if any, in the grade failing which on secondment basis from amongst the incumbents working on the similar posts and having identical pay scale from other departments of Government of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner was regularly promoted on 23.08.2016 to the post of Assistant Director (Legal) (Class-I Gazetted) in the pay band of Rs. 15600- 39000+5400 Grade pay. The emoluments attached to the post of Assistant Director (Legal) were paid to the petitioner subsequent to his regular promotion w.e.f. 23.08.2016. 3. The petitioner’s prayer for release of emoluments attached to the post of Assistant Director (Legal) for the period 30.06.2014 to 22.08.2016 has been turned down by the respondents on the ground that the R&P Rules for the post of Assistant Director (Legal) were not in existence prior to 19.07.2016. Petitioner was promoted as Assistant Director (Legal) only on 23.08.2016, therefore, emoluments for the said post cannot be paid to him for the period 30.06.2014 to 22.08.2016. 4. Petitioner was promoted as Assistant Director (Legal) only on 23.08.2016, therefore, emoluments for the said post cannot be paid to him for the period 30.06.2014 to 22.08.2016. 4. The stand of the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioner for grant of financial emoluments attached to the post of Assistant Director (Legal) for the period 30.06.2014 to 22.08.2016 cannot be accepted for the following reasons: (a) Firstly, the post of Law Officer held by the petitioner w.e.f. 24.06.2004 onwards was abolished with immediate effect vide Notification dated 30.06.2014. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be assumed to be holder of the post of Law Officer after 30.06.2014. The post of Law Officer stood abolished w.e.f. 30.06.2014. (b) The post of Law Officer was upgraded to that of Assistant Director (Legal) w.e.f. 30.06.2014. None else, but the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Director (Legal) w.e.f. 30.06.2014 till he was regularly promoted on this post vide Notification dated 23.08.2016. (c) The records produced by the respondents have also been seen. There is no dispute that the petitioner continued to discharge the duties of Assistant Director (Legal) from 30.06.2014 onwards till he was regularly promoted on the said post on 23.08.2016. (d) The instant was a case where the solitary post of Law Officer held by the petitioner in the Directorate of Agriculture was upgraded to that of Assistant Director (Legal). The apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. R. Santhakumari Velusamy and Others, (2011) 9 SCC 510 elaborated the distinction between upgradation and promotion. It was held that upgradation merely confers a financial benefit by raising the scale of pay of the post without there being movement from a lower position to a higher position. In an upgradation, the candidate continues to hold the same post without any change in the duties and responsibility, but merely gets a higher pay scale. When there is an advancement to higher pay scale without change of post, it may be referred to as up-gradation or promotion to a higher pay-scale. Where the advancement to a higher pay-scale is available to everyone who satisfies the eligibility conditions without undergoing any process of selection, it will be upgradation. But, if the advancement to a higher pay scale without change of post is as a result of some process which has elements of selection, then it will be a promotion to higher pay scale. But, if the advancement to a higher pay scale without change of post is as a result of some process which has elements of selection, then it will be a promotion to higher pay scale. In other words, upgradation by application of process of selection as contrasted from an upgradation simplicitor can be said to be a promotion in its wider sense i.e. advancement to a higher pay-scale. The relevant para from the judgment is as under: “29. On a careful analysis of the principles relating to promotion and upgradation in the light of the aforesaid decisions, the following principles emerge: (i) Promotion is an advancement in rank or grade or both and is a step towards advancement to higher position, grade or honour and dignity. Though in the traditional sense promotion refers to advancement to a higher post, in its wider sense, promotion may include an advancement to a higher pay scale without moving to a different post. But the mere fact that both - that is advancement to a higher position and advancement to a higher pay scale - are described by the common term ‘promotion', does not mean that they are the same. The two types of promotion are distinct and have different connotations and consequences. (ii) Upgradation merely confers a financial benefit by raising the scale of pay of the post without there being movement from a lower position to a higher position. In an upgradation, the candidate continues to hold the same post without any change in the duties and responsibilities but merely gets a higher pay scale. (iii) Therefore, when there is an advancement to a higher pay scale without change of post, it may be referred to as upgradation or promotion to a higher pay scale. But there is still difference between the two. Where the advancement to a higher pay-scale without change of post is available to everyone who satisfies the eligibility conditions, without undergoing any process of selection, it will be upgradation. But if the advancement to a higher pay-scale without change of post is as a result of some process which has elements of selection, then it will be a promotion to a higher pay scale. But if the advancement to a higher pay-scale without change of post is as a result of some process which has elements of selection, then it will be a promotion to a higher pay scale. In other words, upgradation by application of a process of selection, as contrasted from an upgradation simplicitor can be said to be a promotion in its wider sense that is advancement to a higher pay scale. (iv) Generally, upgradation relates to and applies to all positions in a category, who have completed a minimum period of service. Upgradation, can also be restricted to a percentage of posts in a cadre with reference to seniority (instead of being made available to all employees in the category) and it will still be an upgradation simplicitor. But if there is a process of selection or consideration of comparative merit or suitability for granting the upgradation or benefit of advancement to a higher pay scale, it will be a promotion. A mere screening to eliminate such employees whose service records may contain adverse entries or who might have suffered punishment, may not amount to a process of selection leading to promotion and the elimination may still be a part of the process of upgradation simplicitor. Where the upgradation involves a process of selection criteria similar to those applicable to promotion, then it will, in effect, be a promotion, though termed as upgradation. (v) Where the process is an upgradation simplicitor, there is no need to apply the rules of reservation. But where the upgradation involves selection process and is therefore a promotion, the rules of reservation will apply. (vi) Where there is a restructuring of some cadres resulting in creation of additional posts and filling of those vacancies by those who satisfy the conditions of eligibility which includes a minimum period of service, will attract the rules of reservation. On the other hand, where the restructuring of posts does not involve creation of additional posts but merely results in some of the existing posts being placed in a higher grade to provide relief against stagnation, the said process does not invite reservation.” 5. The above principles were reiterated in Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Another vs. Bal Krishan Sharma and Others, (2022) 1 SCC 322 . 6. The above principles were reiterated in Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Another vs. Bal Krishan Sharma and Others, (2022) 1 SCC 322 . 6. In the instant case, the respondents had abolished with immediate effect the post of Law Officer which the petitioner was holding vide Notification dated 30.06.2014. The petitioner, therefore, for all intents and purposes, on and w.e.f. 30.06.2014 was working on the post of Assistant Director (Legal) in the Directorate of Agriculture. The duties and responsibilities of the petitioner remained the same, but he was to get higher pay scale attached to the upgraded post. The stand of the respondents that the petitioner was rendering his services as Law Officer from 30.06.2014 to 23.08.2016 cannot be countenanced in the facts of the case. As observed earlier, even the record produced by the respondents reflects that w.e.f. 30.06.2014, the petitioner was discharging the duties as Assistant Director (Legal) and not as Law Officer, which post stood abolished on 30.06.2014. The R&P Rules framed by the respondents for the post of Assistant Director (Legal) vide Notification dated 19.07.2016 prescribe that the solitary post of Assistant Director (Legal) is to be filled in 100% by promotion from amongst Law Officers possessing 10 years of regular service or regular combined with continuous ad-hoc service. The petitioner who was promoted as Law Officer on 24.06.2004 satisfied this eligibility criteria laid down in the R&P Rules as on 23.06.2014. 7. The post of Law Officer was abolished on 30.06.2014 and was upgraded to the post of Assistant Director (Legal) in the pay band of Rs. 15,600-39100+5400 Grade Pay with immediate effect. Thus, the petitioner worked as Assistant Director (Legal) with effect from 30.06.2014. It cannot be said that he worked as a Law Officer on the post which did not exist after 30.06.2014. Hence, financial benefit for the period from 30.06.2014 to 23.08.2016 cannot be denied to the petitioner merely because of the fact that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Assistant Director (Legal) were framed only on 19.07.2016 and benefit of regular promotion against the post of Assistant Director (Legal) was granted to the petitioner only from 23.06.2016. 8. For all the aforesaid reasons, there is merit in the contention of the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. 8. For all the aforesaid reasons, there is merit in the contention of the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the emoluments attached to the post of Assistant Director (Legal) to the petitioner w.e.f. 30.06.2014 to 23.08.2016. This exercise be completed within a period of 8 weeks from today. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.