Uttarakhand High Court
Jagdish Chandra Lohani vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 4 July, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No.1943 of 2017
Jagdish Chandra Lohani ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .....Respondents
Present:- Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Narayan Dutt, learned Standing Counsel along with Mr. S.M.S.
Mehta, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the order dated 28.06.2017, passed by respondent
no.2, annexure-15 to the writ petition, whereby the notional
promotion has been denied to the petitioner.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was
working with the Directorate of ICDS, Uttarakhand on the post of
Administrative Officer. Petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk
with the respondent in the year 1985. Thereafter, he was promoted
as Senior Assistant and subsequent promotion was also given to
the petitioner on the post of Chief Assistant and finally, he was
promoted on the post of Administrative Officer.
4. According to the petitioner after Administrative
Officer, petitioner was entitled to be promoted on the post of
Senior Administrative Officer and thereafter, Chief
Administrative Officer and the procedure for said promotional
exercise have already been initiated by the respondent-
department. But, before the petitioner could reap the benefit of
promotional exercise and would have been promoted on the post
of Senior Administrative Officer and Chief Administrative
Officer, he got retired on 31.05.2017. Petitioner one day before
his retirement moved this Court by filing a WPSS No.1237 of
2017 and that writ petition has been decided by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 30.05.2017.
Pursuant to the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in the aforesaid writ petition, respondent no.2 has taken a decision
and the notional promotion has been denied to the petitioner. It is
feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner is before this
Court claiming notional promotion.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of promotional exercise
which was undertaken after his retirement and accordingly, he is
entitled to get notional promotion. In order to buttress his
arguments, he relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No.274 of 2016 (V.K. Joshi vs.
State of Uttarakhand & others) decided on 09.08.2018. He
further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Major General H.M. Singh, VSM vs. Union of India &
another; reported in (2014) 3 SCC 670.
6. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner as
is reflected from the impugned order dated 28.06.2017, the
promotional exercise was proposed vide Resolution
No.14.12.2016 and before this proposal of the government for
promotion takes place, the petitioner retired on 31.05.2017.
7. State has filed its counter affidavit and in the counter
affidavit, the specific stand has been taken by the respondents that
though the process for promotion was under consideration, but
due to departmental formalities for example collection of records
in relations to the annual character role of the incumbents, the
same could not have been completed and before it could have
been completed, petitioner retired on superannuation, therefore,
the petitioner could not be promoted.
8. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed
under the hand of Anulekha Bisht, District Programme Officer,
Bal Vikas, Nainital, District Nainital and it is stated in para 3 of
the said supplementary counter affidavit that there is no rules and
government orders which provides for giving benefit of
promotional exercise to the incumbents who have already retired.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from
the perusal of the record, this Court proceeds to decide the writ
petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
judgment of V.K. Joshi (Supra) and Major General H.M. Singh
(Supra) in order to buttress his point that even after his retirement,
he is entitled to be promoted on the next higher post of Senior
Administrative Officer and Chief Administrative Officer.
10. I have gone through both the judgments very
carefully. Both the judgments are distinguishable on facts.
11. In case of V.K. Joshi (Supra) before V.K. Joshi
retired, Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted and
recommendation was made by the Departmental Promotion
Committee which was not given effect to by the respondent-
department till he retired.
12. So far as the judgment of Major General H.M.
Singh (Supra) is concerned, from para 6 of the judgment, it is
explicitly clear that before retirement on superannuation of the
appellant-Major General H.M. Singh, the meeting of the Selection
Board for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General was
convened and Selection Board cleared the name of appellant-
Major General H.M. Singh for promotion to the rank of
Lieutenant General, but still he was not promoted before his
retirement on 29.02.2008.
13. But, in the case in hand, no such promotion of the
petitioner was recommended to the next higher post. Thus, the
facts of both the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner to support his case are distinguishable which will not be
attracted to any help to the petitioner. It is the case of the
petitioner that a proposal for promotion vide Resolution
No.14.12.2016 was launched, but before this proposal of the
Government for promotion turned into reality, the petitioner
retired on 31.05.2017.
14. In this view of the matter, I do not find any force in
the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
15. No order as to costs.
16. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
04.07.2024
AK
