GORAKH SINGH Vs. HPSFC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the passage of time the scope of the petition has been narrowed down. The only grievance of the petitioner is that there is no promotional avenue to the office helpers who have been subsequently redesignated as clerks and in fact kept at par with clerks (ministerial staff).

(2.) FROM the record it is not clear as to whether the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 (Annexure A -22) are applicable to the petitioner or not. The Apex Court in Food Corporation of India and others v. Parashotam Das Bansal and others, (2008) 5 SCC 100 and A. Satyanarayana and others v. S. Purushotham and others, (2008) 5 SCC 416 has clarified that avenues of promotion are required to be created by the State. This is to enhance efficiency in the administration and avoid stagnation.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY direction is issued to the respondents to either consider the petitioner's case for promotion/placement in accordance with the Rules (Annexure A -22) or if they are so found not to be applicable qua the category to which the petitioner belongs, then consider creating avenues of further promotion. This is to avoid stagnation. It cannot be disputed that petitioner has been stagnating on the same post for more than fourteen years. Consequential action be positively taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.