PURSHOTAM LAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant in this original application had claimed various reliefs including directions to the Respondent State to give him the appointment as Pandit in any Sanskrit College against the quota reserved for Scheduled Caste. Earlier there was some dispute qua grant of the prayer of the applicant. However, short affidavit dated July 22, 2004 was filed by the Director of Education, Himachal Pradesh, the material part whereof reads as under:

(2.) In view of the above affidavit the learned Counsel for the applicant had submitted that the only grievance for which the applicant now wants redressal is that the applicant has been deprived of the pay benefit of promotion w.e.f. March 30, 1994 till the issue of office order because he had been promoted on notional basis whereas admittedly he was entitled for consideration for promotion in the D.P.C. held in the year 1994 but was not considered. Thus non-consideration of the applicant and denial of promotion to him from the due date was as a consequence of lapse on the part of the Respondents and for their lapses the applicant could not be deprived of the salary as has been done. It is thus urged that he ought to have been promoted on regular basis with all consequential benefits instead of promoting him on notional basis and thereby depriving him of the benefit of pay.

(3.) The contention of the learned Deputy Advocate General is that during the period March 30, 1994 the date from which the notional promotion has been given to the applicant till the date of his joining pursuant to the office order enclosed with the supplementary affidavit he did not work as Pandit, therefore he has rightly been given the promotion on notional basis thereby denying the pay to him.