JUDGMENT :

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the benefit of notional promotion to the post of Senior Assistant to the petitioners w.e.f. the date the vacancy in the cadre of Senior Assistant was available.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed in the respondent-department as Peons on different dates. During their service tenure, they were promoted to the post of Clerk and thereafter, to the post of Junior Assistant from time to time as per their eligibility. The service particulars of the petitioners are as under :-

He further submits that in the year 2021, 77 posts of Senior Assistant were sanctioned in the Regional Office, out of which 36 posts were filled and 41 posts were lying vacant and these posts were to be filled amongst the Clerks and Junior Assistants. He further submits that total 37 Junior Assistants including the petitioners, from the regional office, gave their consent for further promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, however, the respondent-department, vide office order dated 13.12.2021 (Annexure P-5), promoted 19 employees to the post of Senior Assistant by using the method of pick and choose policy and the names of the petitioners were not considered for promotion. He further submits that the cases of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant were under consideration, however, in the meantime the petitioners reached at the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.01.2023 & 31.01.2025. The petitioners have submitted various representations as well as legal notices to the respondents seeking notional promotion to the post of Senior Assistant but no action has been taken on the same. He further submits that as the posts of Senior Assistant were vacant, while the petitioners were in service, the action of the respondents in not promoting them to the said post is patently illegal and arbitrary and the petitioners are entitled for promotion with all consequential benefits. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1584 of 2025 titled as ‘Bharat Bhushan Vs. State of Punjab and others’ decided on 07.03.2026.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the relevant documents.

4. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed in the respondent-department as Peons on different dates. During their service tenure, they were promoted to the post of Clerk and thereafter, to the post of Junior Assistant from time to time and retired as such, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.01.2023 & 31.01.2025. The case of the petitioners is that while they were in service, 41 posts of Senior Assistant were lying vacant in the respondent-department and being fully eligible, the petitioners along with the other Junior Assistants gave their consent for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant and the respondent-department, vide office order dated 13.12.2021 (Annexure P-5), promoted 19 employees to the post of Senior Assistant and did not consider the petitioners for the said promotion. However, perusal of order dated 13.12.2021 (Annexure P-5) shows that no person junior to the petitioners was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant.

5. The petitioners are claiming notional promotion solely on the ground that the posts of Senior Assistant were lying vacant while they were in service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent judgment dated 27.11.2024 p