Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with Signatures

WPSB/ 165/ 2020

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. (Per: Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.)

1. Mohd Matloob, learned counsel for

the petitioner.

2. Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned Additional

C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. Petitioner suffers from 60 percent disability. According to him, he was entitled for promotion against a vacancy reserved for physically disabled person, however, his claim was not considered. In this writ petition, petitioner has

sought the following reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature

of certiorari quashing the order dated

10.06.2019 (Annexure No. 10).

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature

of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 & 2 to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Regional Manager against one post falling within the category of 4% reservation under RPWD Act from the post of Divisional Sales Manager which is occupied by the petitioner who is a physically disabled person with benchmark disability and is occupied the same on his merit which is the post of feeding cadre of

the post of Regional Manager.

4. Annexure 1 to the writ petition, which is challenged, is an Office Memo issued by Social Welfare Department of the State Government, whereby a Committee was constituted for identification of posts, which can be filled

by appointing physically disabled person. The said Committee decided that reservation, available to physically disabled person, shall be determined based on number of posts in the cadre and not the number of vacancy. Petitioner has also sought direction to the respondents to consider him for promotion for the post of Regional Manager.

5. Learned State Counsel submits that at the time of filing of writ petition in 2020, petitioner was 59 years of age. He submits that since petitioner retired in 2021, therefore, after retirement, benefit of promotion cannot be given to him. He, thus, submits that writ petition has become infructuous by efflux of time.

6. We find substance in the said submission. No Government Servant claim vested right of promotion, that too from the back date. Promotion, if granted, has to be prospective and after retirement, this Court cannot issue direction to promote the petitioner. Thus, the reliefs, as claimed in the writ petition, do not survive.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, as infructuous.

(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

06.08.2025 Aswal N S I I N T G I R H A A J SWAL D23s8De.,5 iN a 5 r gpti:4 eo 1 tc : as72N =tl0aIu yN 6lm CF s,e 5 ioB obag .d=cn 08 Hr e6, Id c G742 n b5H =E y3C NeB0N : O5IT I74 T1U8C ,R RsBA4t1A F=JeO -0 JU9S FSTI3BN I ' UN 7GAfTG 6HR89 H9 8 A3RKCS4SHBWfWK6A0HF7NA 1L4DL N ,C D20, o5Eua3=D8H25I6GfF9H58 C0C2OaUD3RA0TC8 OFb4F0 8UdT13A06CR95FK1EH25Ae8aNA3D50,f