##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No.2431 of 2019 rd Decided on 23 March, 2026 Anil Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mo han Goel, Judge

1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes

For the petitioner: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has

prayed for the following relief:-

“That a writ in the nature of mandamus may H kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents

to hold review DPC for the post of Lecturer/PGT (Sociology) and thereafter the petitioner be promoted as Lecturer/PGT (Sociology) from the date of his juniors have been promoted, i.e. 23.08.2019 with all consequential benefits of pay,

arrears, seniority etc.”

::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2026 22:15:48 :::CIS

2

2. The petitioner approached this Court feeling aggrieved by the fact that despite his eligibility, persons junior to him were promoted against the post of Lecturer/PGT (Sociology) w.e.f. 23.08.2019, whereas, he was erroneously

ignored.

3. To cut the controversy short, when this case was

listed on 0511.2020, the following order was passed:-

“By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

“That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents too hold review DPC for the post of Lecturer/PGT (Sociology) and thereafter the petitioner be

Cpromoted as Lecturer/PGT (Sociology) from the date of his juniors have been promoted, i.e. 23.08.2019 with all consequential benefits of pay, arrears, seniority etc.”

Learned Additional Advocate General informs the Court that the relief prayed for by the petitioner has been granted. He submits that the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed and has been

i granted promotion to the post in issue w.e.f.

H 23.08.2019.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the promotion stands conferred upon the petitioner w.e.f. 23.08.2019, but it is notional and when the promotion stood erroneously denied on account of acts of omission and commission of the respondent-department, then the petitioner is

indeed entitled for all consequential benefits.

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that he may be granted some time to have instructions in this regard. As prayed for, list on

10.11.2020.”

::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2026 22:15:48 :::CIS

3

4. The above order demonstrates that during the pendency of the petition and without adjudication of the petition in favour of the petitioner on merit, promotion stood conferred by the respondents themselves to the petitioner w.e.f. 23.08.2019, that is the date from which, he was seeking promotion on the ground that he erroneously stood ignored for

promotion while his juniors were promoted.

5. In this backdrop, now the issue which this Court has to decide is as to whether the act of the respondents of granting notional benefits only on promotion to the petitioner is justified

in law or not.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the fact that he was wrongly ignored for promotion, the petitioner promptly approached this Court. The promotion of his juniors were effected on 23.08.2019, whereas, the writ was filed on 04.09.2019 During the pendency of the petition, as already observed hereinabove, the respondents themselves conferred promotion to the petitioner and that too w.e.f. 23.08.2019. This means that the petitioner indeed was entitled for promotion from the said date,

but, the same was erroneously denied to him.

::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2026 22:15:48 :::CIS

4

7. That being so, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the acts of omission and commission of the respondents. Denial of promotion to the petitioner from due date cannot act to the advantage of the respondents and disadvantage of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner indeed is entitled for all consequential benefits as from the d