Employee forgoing promotion ineligible for reconsideration for one year or until next vacancy per instructions; upheld denial of promotion to senior when juniors benefited during bar period.

Judgment :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Petitioner, Indu Sharma, having retired from the post of Junior Assistant had filed Original Application No.878 of 2005 before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, and upon abolition of Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No.646 of 2019, wherein, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):—

“(i). That office order No.Bhasni-115/01-Satha- dated 03.09.2004 Annexure A-3 and office order No.Bhasni-115/85-Satha-dated 13.01.2005 Annexure A-4 may kindly be set aside and quashed and the promotion of respondents No.3 & 4 to the post of Senior Assistant may kindly be set-aside and quashed.

(ii). That respondents may be directed to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant as per Annexure A-1 as Annexure A-2 has not been accepted by respondent till date.

(iii). That respondents may be directed to convene the fresh D.P.C. for the purpose of reviewing of the promotion order of Respondent No.3 & 4 and the case of the applicant may be considered for promotion from the day when she got eligible.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:

3. Grievance of the petitioner [Indu Sharma] is that she joined services as Clerk on 21.01.1985 and after promotion as Senior Clerk she joined on 01.03.1988 under the respondents. Petitioner was promoted as Junior Assistant w.e.f. 21.01.1995 in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2700/-. It is averred that the petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant on 02.08.2001, but on account of certain exigencies she had foregone the said promotion. The petitioner was again promoted as Senior Assistant by the Director, Language & Culture on 29.06.2004 [Annexure A-1] but the petitioner did not join her promotion.

3(i). The claim of the petitioner is that the Respondent No.3-Kuldeep Singh, was promoted as Senior Assistant on 03.09.2004 [Annexure A-3] and though the petitioner despite being senior and eligible was not considered. Likewise, it is averred that The Respondent No.4-Amit Kumar Sharma, was promoted as Senior Assistant in 2005 and despite the fact that petitioner was senior and eligible she was not considered for promotion at the relevant time. Petitioner submitted a representation on 03.03.2005 [Annexure A-6] on which no decision was taken.

In these circumstances, the instant petition has been filed assailing the alleged promotion order dated 03.09.2004 [Annexure A-3] and 13.01.2005 [Annexure A-4] promoting the Respondents No.3 & 4 as Senior Assistant with the direction to the State Authorities, to convene a Review DPC and to promote the petitioner as Senior Assistant, from the date the private Respondents 3 & 4 were promoted as such, with all consequential benefits.

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES:

4. Pursuance to the issuance of notice, on 18.04.2005, State Authorities filed a Reply-Affidavit on 08.07.2005 of Director, Language and Culture, Himachal Pradesh.

4(i). Perusal of reply-affidavit indicates that the Respondent No.3-Kuldeep Singh was never granted the benefit of promotion as Senior Assistant. Reply-affidavit states that respondent No.3-Kuldeep Singh was only given placement as Senior Assistant. So far as, respondent No.4-Amit Kumar is concerned, the State Authorities have stated in the reply-affidavit that on recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 07.01.2005 Amit Kumar was promoted as Senior Assistant on 14.01.2005 and his posting was stayed by the State Authorities on representation being made by him on 21.04.2005. Reply-Affidavit further indicates that respondents No.3 & 4 who are claimed to be juniors were given benefit of placement in case of respondent No.3 as Senior Assistant on 03.09.2004 [Annexure A-3] and the Respondent No.4 was promoted as Senior Assistant on 14.01.2005.

4(ii). Reply-affidavit states that at the time of placement and promotion of respondents No.3 & 4, the petitioner was not considered in view of Government Instructions dated 27.08.2004 [as reproduced in Para 6(iii) of the reply-affidavit