The claim for promotion is not a right and the promotions are to be made at the discretion of the employer as and when the employer feels the requirement of the same.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral). - The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking promotion to the post of District Revenue Officer with effect from the date, the person junior to him was promoted. The claim of the petitioner has been declined by the respondents vide impugned order dated 04.11.2020 (Annexure P/10). The said order is under challenge before this Court in the present writ petition.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was charge-sheeted in the year 2008 in respect of certain allegations and on the basis of the said charge sheet, he was dismissed from service on 07.05.2012. The said order of dismissal was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing of CWP No. 11011 of 2012. When the petitioner was out of service, an employee namely, Smt. Paramjit Kaur Sandhu was promoted as District Revenue Officer vide order dated 03.02.2011 but, the said order was never executed as Smt. Paramjit Kaur Sandhu was on leave. Before the promotion order of Smt. Paramjit Kaur Sandhu dated 03.02.2011 could be implemented, same was cancelled on 18.06.2013. It was only on 16.10.2014, the said Smt Paramjit Kaur Sandhu was again promoted prospectively as District Revenue Officer in pursuance to which order, she actually joined the promoted post. The writ petition being CWP No.11011 of 2012 filed by the petitioner came to be decided by this Court on 11.11.2013 and the order dismissing the petitioner from the service was held to be bad and a direction was issued to the respondent-State to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. The said order was complied with and the petitioner was given all the benefits, for which, he was entitled for, till the date he attained the age of superannuation i.e. 30.06.2012.

3. After a period of approximately seven years of allowing the said writ petition by this Court, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.675 of 2020 with a prayer that a direction be issued to the respondents to promote him to the post of District Revenue Officer w.e.f. 03.02.2011, when his junior, Smt. Paramjit Kaur Sandhu was promoted to the said post. The said writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to approach the respondent-department by filing an appropriate representation by raising the said grievance. A representation was submitted by the petitioner on 17.01.2020 claiming promotion to the post of District Revenue Officer from the date, his junior Smt. Paramjit Kaur Sandhu was promoted i.e. on 03.02.2011. The respondent-department vide impugned order dated 04.11.2020 (Annexure P/10) has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that order dated 03.02.2011 promoting Smt. Paramjit Kaur Sandhu as District Revenue Officer was cancelled by the department on 18.06.2013 before the same could be implemented and it was only on 16.10.2014, she was again promoted prospectively as District Revenue Officer but, by the said date, the petitioner had already superannuated and, therefore, no person junior to the petitioner worked as District Revenue Officer during the service career of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that though, order dated 03.02.2011 promoting Smt. Paramjit Kaur Sandhu as District Revenue Officer was cancelled on 18.06.2013 before its implementation but, as the said order was cancelled on the ground of non-joining of Smt. Paramjit Kaur Sandhu, the benefit of promotion to the post of District Revenue Officer from the said date cannot be denied to the petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

6. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that no person junior to the petitioner worked as District Revenue Officer during the service career of the petitioner. Though, Smt Paramjit Kaur Sandhu was given promotion as District Revenue Officer vide order dated 03.02.2011 but, it is a matter of fact that the s