Point of Law: It clearly reveals that it was not petitioner, who never came forward to render his duties against post to which he subsequently came to be promoted, rather he was prevented by department itself from discharging his duties against post of Horticulture Development Officer by promoting ineligible person.

ORDER :

By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:-

“(i) That the impugned order dated 02.12.2020, contained in Annexure P-9, passed by respondent No.1, rejecting the genuine claim of the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside by issuing writ of certiorari.

(ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to pay amount of arrears on account of enhanced pay and allowances for the left out period w.e.f. 15.12.1999 to 02.03.2005 along with interest @ 9% per annum by issuing writ of mandamus.”

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that on 31.10.1988, petitioner was selected as Village Extension Officer through H.P. Public Service Commission and since then, he had been working with the respondent-department till his superannuation. Since, despite petitioner being eligible, he was not being promoted to the post of Horticulture Development Officer, he approached this Court by way of CWP-T No. 2493 of 2008, titled Shiv Ram and another vs. State of H.P. & others (Annexure P-1). After having taken into consideration pleadings adduced on record by respective parties in the aforesaid case, this Court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Horticulture Development Officer w.e.f. 1999 with all consequential benefits against the available vacancies or by creating supernumerary posts within a period of four months from the date of passing of the judgment. It is not in dispute that aforesaid judgment never came to be laid challenge in the superior court of law and as such, same has attained finality.

3. Pursuant to directions contained in the aforesaid judgment, respondents vide notification dated 27.01.2014 (Annexure P-2), convened a meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee and thereafter on its recommendation, promoted the petitioner to the post of Horticulture Development Officer (Class-I Gazetted) in the department of Horticulture w.e.f. 15.12.1999 (on contract basis) and w.e.f 16.9.2009 (on regular basis). However, while passing aforesaid order of promotion, no arrears, if any, were paid to the petitioner on account of his being promoted to the post of Horticulture Development Officer from due date, as such, he was compelled to approach this Court by way of Execution Petition No. 10 of 2015, which ultimately came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 25.08.2015, Annexure P-3. Vide aforesaid judgment, Division Bench of this Court disposed of Execution Petition filed by the petitioner directing the respondents to comply with the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment dated 24.08.2012, passed by this Court in CWP-T NO. 2493 of 2008, wherein admittedly this Court while issuing direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Horticulture Development Officer had ordered for grant of all consequential benefits. Despite there being aforesaid order passed in execution proceedings, respondents failed to comply with the aforesaid directions contained in judgment dated 24.08.2012, Annexure P-3, passed by this Court and as such, petitioner filed contempt petition bearing COPC No. 421/2016, Annexure P-6, which came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 18.05.2017. Careful perusal of the aforesaid judgment reveals that during the pendency of the contempt petition, order dated 15.05.2017 (Annexure P-5) came to be passed by Principal Secretary (Horticulture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, conveying therein decision to implement the judgment dated 24.08.2012, passed by this Court in CWP-T No.2493 of 2002, Division Bench of this Court, having taken note of the aforesaid communication, disposed of the contempt petition, but reserved liberty to the petitioner to lay challenge to aforesaid consideration order passed by the authorities by way of independent proceedings. In the