SAT NARAIN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was enrolled by the management of the erstwhile Nahan Foundry Limited as unskilled worker vide office order dated 13.8.1973. He was promoted to the post of Sub-Branch In charge vide office order dated 7.4.1976. The post of Sub-Branch In charge was in feeder category for promotion to the post of Branch In charge. The promotion to the post of Branch In charge was regulated under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for Non-Technical Staff of Nahan Foundry Limited, duly approved by the Board of Directors. Relevant portion whereof reads thus:

(2.) Petitioner was over looked for promotion by the employer and the persons junior to him were promoted to the post of Branch In charge on 5.2.1987 and thereafter two more incumbents were promoted to the post of Branch In charge from the post of Sub-Branch In charge on 1.7.1987 and 1.12.1987. Petitioner made representation to the management for considering his case for promotion to the post of Branch In charge. Nahan Foundry Limited was taken over by the State Government on 1.10.1988. Petitioner became employee of the State. He filed O. A. No. 149/1995 for the redressal of his grievance. The same was directed to be treated itself as a representation to the Secretary (PW). He was directed to consider the case of the Petitioner on merits in accordance with law and decide the same within a period of four months. The same was rejected by the Secretary (PW). Petitioner was informed about the rejection of the same vide Annexures A-8 and A-9 dated 5.10.1996, respectively.

(3.) Mr. Dilip Sharma has strenuously argued that his client has fundamental right to be considered for promotion to the post of Branch In charge from the feeder category of Sub-Branch In charge. According to him, his client was fully eligible and qualified to be considered for promotion. He also contended that at the time when the Petitioner was over looked for promotion to the post of Branch In charge and the persons junior to him were promoted neither he was under suspension nor any charge-sheet was issued for initiating disciplinary proceedings against him. He lastly contended that no criminal charge was pending against his client.