R.R. RANA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs- I. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction quashing Office Order dtd. 1/5/2012, (Annexure P-8). ii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent department and respondent No.3 to convene review DPC and consider the case of the petitioner for promotion of the post of Labour Officer from the due Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment date i.e. Sept., 2002 with all consequential benefits or in alternative direct the respondent department to promote the petitioner as Labour Officer w.e.f. Sep., 2002.

(2.) The case as pleaded by the petitioner is that he was appointed as Labour Inspector on 8/8/1990. On completion of five years of service as Labour Inspector, the petitioner became eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Labour Officer. The post of Labour Officer fell vacant in the month of September, 2002. The petitioner being senior most Labour Inspector was though due for consideration for promotion to the post of Labour Officer, but, such consideration was stalled as one Shri Rajesh Kumar preferred O.A. No.3289 of 2002, titled as Rajesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and Ors., before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal asserting his claim to be considered for promotion to the post of Labour Officer on the premise that the post as per the applicable roster was to be offered to the candidate from the Scheduled Caste category and the said Shri Rajesh Kumar being a scheduled caste candidate was entitled to be considered. The petitioner in the instant petition was also impleaded as respondent in the said petition. By way of interim order passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, the process for further promotion was halted. Finally, the O.A. No.3289 of 2002 was dismissed vide order dtd. 30/9/2004. Thereafter, DPC was convened and on its recommendation, the petitioner was promoted as Labour Officer in the month of March, 2005.

(3.) The grievance raised by the petitioner is that he was due for consideration for promotion to the post of Labour Officer in September, 2002 and since the same was delayed till March, 2005 without any fault on his part, the petitioner was entitled to be promoted as Labour Officer w.e.f. September, 2002 with all consequential benefits.