Continuing wrong in promotion denial causing recurring seniority/financial loss overrides delay/laches; backdated promotion for seniority granted without arrears, extending parity to eligible overlooked candidates.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. Petitioner herein is aggrieved by order dated 10.10.2023 (Annexure P-13) passed by Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Shimla, addressed to Superintending Engineer, HPPWD, 4th Circle Shimla, whereby the representation having been filed by him with regard to his promotion to the post of Junior Draughtsman w.e.f. 31.08.2015, came to be rejected on the ground of delay.

2. Though careful perusal of afore order clearly reveals that petitioner herein was entitled to be granted promotion as Draughtsman w.e.f. 31.08.2015, but yet prayer made on behalf of the petitioner through representation, as detailed herein above, came to be rejected on the ground that petitioner never raised any protest, rather he without there being agitation, accepted his promotion to the post in question in the year 2019.

3. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that in the year 1999, petitioner was engaged as Work Inspector on daily wage basis. After eight years i.e. on 05.11.2008, petitioner was regularized against the post of Work Inspector. Vide notification dated 30.07.2014, respondent-Department circulated Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Junior Draughtsman (Civil), wherein category of Work Inspector is also made one of the feeding category. In the year 2015, DPC held for promotion to the posts of Junior Draughtsman, total 50 candidates belonging to the feeder category of Work Inspector (the category to which petitioner belongs), who possessed at least two years Certificate in the trade of Draughtsmanship (Civil) with five years service along with candidates of other feeder categories were considered by the DPC for promotion to the post of Junior Draughtsman and found suitable.

4. Though petitioner was also found fit in the panel of 50 candidates as approved by the Departmental Promotion Committee, but at the first instance, total 41 candidates from the feeder category (Work Inspector), 6 candidates from Class-IV Industrial/ Non- Industrial category and 7 candidates from Class-III Industrial/ Non- Industrial categories were promoted to the post of Junior Draughtsman, vide order dated 31.08.2015, as a result thereof, petitioner along with other eight similarly situated persons, who though were eligible to be promoted to the post of Junior Draughtsman, were denied promotion. Since factum with regard to promotion of seven persons belonging to other non-feeding category i.e. Class-III Industrial/Non-Industrial category never came to the notice of the petitioner, he along with other persons remained silent.

5. Vide order dated 30.10.2019, petitioner came to be promoted as Junior Draughtsman along with other 38 candidates from the feeding category of Work Inspector. On 08.11.2019, petitioner joined as Junior Draughtsman in the office of Executive Engineer Shimla Division No.1. On 22.06.2020, respondents issued seniority list of Junior Draughtsman as stood on 30.09.2019 and thereafter, petitioner came to know that in the year 2015 some persons were promoted ahead of him against the post of Junior Draughtsman. Besides above, petitioner also came to know in the month of August, 2023 that two persons namely Yogender Sharma and Veer Chand, who were similarly situate to the petitioner and were inadvertently left out despite there being recommendation made by the Departmental Promotion Committee, had made representation to the department claiming promotion to the post of Junior Draughtsman from back date i.e. 2015. They were su