LAJENDER SINGH PATHANIA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs: -

(2.) The facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are as under: -

(3.) The petitioner has raised a grievance that the impugned orders dtd. 22/12/2020 (Annexure P-20) and 24/12/2020 (Annexure P-21) are unsustainable for the reasons firstly that earlier promotion order of petitioner dtd. 29/5/2010 (Annexure P-14) has been reviewed without taking into consideration the direction dtd. 30/4/2010 passed by this Court in CWP No. 1465 of 2008, secondly, the mandate of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj and others vs. Union of India and others 2006 (8) SCC 212 and reiterated in subsequent judgments has not been taken into consideration and thirdly, the representation made by Sh. Sanjeev Kumar and Smt. Ram Piari was mere pretense to harass the petitioner, otherwise even by taking the case of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar and Smt. Ram Piariat its face value, the petitioner could also have been ordered to be promoted from the same date from which above said persons were promoted i.e. 15/3/2007 and lastly the belated decision of the respondents to alter the date of promotion of the petitioner as Senior Assistant was not bonafide.