IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Surinder Singh, J.
Sh. Pawan kumar — Appellant
Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh And another — Respondent
Decided on : 03-08-2010
Promotion - Monument Attendant - The court directed the respondent Department to formulate a Scheme for providing promotional avenues to the category of Monument Attendants within a specified period.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Monument Attendant, sought direction to formulate a Scheme for promotional avenues as there were no existing promotion avenues for the category.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondent to formulate a Scheme for providing promotional avenues to the category of Monument Attendants within a specified period.
Issues: Lack of promotional avenues for Monument Attendants and the petitioner's request for the formulation of a Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court can issue a direction to formulate a Scheme if there are no promotion avenues for a particular group of employees, and employees have a right to be considered for promotion.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent to formulate an appropriate Scheme for providing promotional avenues to Monument Attendants within a period of four months.
JUDGMENT :
Surinder Singh, J.
Petitioner is a Monument Attendant in the respondent Department of Languages, Arts and Culture. He is working in the said capacity w.e.f. 27.2.1988. Admittedly there is no promotion avenues to the categories of Monument Attendant as such he has sought direction by filing the present petition to formulate a Scheme.
2. Although the respondent-State has admitted this fact that there is no further promotional avenues yet, according to them, they are not bound to do so.
3. In Food Corporation of India and Others Vs. Parashotam Das Bansal and Others, (2008) 5 SCC 100 apex Court observed that if there is no channel for promotion in respect of a particular group of officers resulting in stagnation over the years, the court although may not issue any direction as to in which manner a scheme should be formulated or by reason thereof interfere with the operation of existing channel of promotion to the officers working in different departments and officers of the Government but a direction can be issued by it to formulate the Scheme.
4. Further in A. Satyanarayana and Others Vs. S. Purushotham and Others, (2008) 5 SCC 416 held that a mere chance of promotion is not a fundamental right but an employee has a right to be considered for promotion. In that view of the matter any policy whereby all promotional avenues to be promoted in respect of a category of employees for all times to come cannot be nullified and the same would be hit by Article 16 of the Constitution.
5. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents, the Recruitments and Promotion Rules for the post of the clerk provides for 10% by promotion from amongst the matriculate class-IV employees as per Annexure A9. Admittedly, the benefit has been given to class IV Peons and Gallery Attendant for promotion as clerks against 10% quota. Therefore, respondents may consider the case of the petitioner to include this category for promotion against the reserved quota of 10% for the post of clerk by framing appropriate Scheme.
6. In view of the above stated position, respondents may formulate an appropriate Scheme for providing the promotional avenues to such category within a period of four months from the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. The petition stands disposed of in above terms along with pending applications if any.
Food Corporation of India and Others Vs. Parashotam Das Bansal and Others
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.