RAJ PAL SINGH RAGHAV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the official respondents to promote the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 2,200-4,000 w.e.f. 24.1.1991 when his juniors were promoted. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined as Teacher in the respondent department on 13.6.1955. Subsequently, he was promoted as officiating Headmaster vide order dated 7.10.1980 (Annexure P-1). The Provisional Gradation List was circulated, as it stood on 1.1.1985. Petitioner was at serial No. 91 of this Provisional List and extracted copy thereof is appended at Annexure P-2. It is the further pleaded case of the petitioner that respondent No. 1, vide order dated 24.1.1991 (Annexure P-3), promoted his juniors ignoring his better and preferential claim. Another similar promotion order came to be issued on 8.7.1992 (Annexure P-4), again ignoring better and preferential claim of the petitioner. Immediately thereafter, petitioner moved a representation dated 24.7.1992 (Annexure P-5), but no action thereon was taken. He again submitted another representation dated 13.10.1992 (Annexure P-6), but to no avail. Hence this writ petition.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued vide order dated 18.1.1993, but when reply-was not filed, the writ petition was admitted for regular hearing, vide order dated 29.3.1993. When the case came up for regular hearing on 22.2.2013, the case was adjourned to 26.3.2013, on the request of learned counsel for the State to seek instructions and also to file written statement, if any. When the case came up for hearing on 26.3.2013, learned counsel for the State was granted another opportunity to seek instructions and to file written statement, if any. However, no written statement was filed by the respondent department.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was at serial No. 91 of the Provisional Gradation List, Annexure P-2, whereas respondents No. 3 and 4 were at serial No. 112 and 147, thus, far junior to the petitioner. Respondents No. 3 and 4 came to be granted substantive promotion, vide orders dated 24.1.1991 (Annexure P-3) and 8.7.1992 (Annexure P-4), respectively. He further submits that in the interregnum, respondents No. 3 and 4 as well as the petitioner also stood retired from their services, after reaching the age of superannuation. He next contended that no reason, whatsoever, has been assigned as to why the petitioner was not considered for promotion, despite the fact that his juniors were promoted. He prays for allowing the writ petition, directing the respondent authorities to grant substantive promotion to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 2,200-4,000/- w.e.f. 24.1.1991, when his juniors were promoted.