Himachal Pradesh High CourtSom Dutt vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 17 April, 2023Bench:Sabina,Satyen Vaidya1IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA\n\n\n                       CWP No.2681 of 2022 alongwith CWP No.6603, 7755,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 .7757, 7758, 7846, 8220 to 8223 and 8847 of 2022\n\n\n\n\n\n                       Date of Decision : 17th April, 20231.    CWP No.2681 of 2022\n\n    Som Dutt                                             ...... Petitioner\n                             Versus\n    State of Himachal Pradesh and others                 ......Respondents2.    CWP No.6603 of 2022\n\n    Jai Krishan                                          ...... Petitioner\n                             Versus\n\n    State of Himachal Pradesh and others                 ......Respondents3     CWP No.7755 of 2022Tek Chand                                            ...... Petitioner\n                             Versus\n\n\n    State of Himachal Pradesh and others                 ......Respondents4.    CWP No.7757 of 2022Mast Ram                                             ...... Petitioner\n                             Versus\n\n\n\n\n\n    State of Himachal Pradesh and others                 ......Respondents5.    CWP No.7758 of 2022Geeta Ram                                            ...... Petitioner\n                             Versus\n\n    State of Himachal Pradesh and others                 ......Respondents6.    CWP No.7846 of 2022Amar Singh                                           ...... Petitioner\n                             Versus\n\n    State of Himachal Pradesh and others                 ......Respondents::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2023 20:34:00 :::CIS27.     CWP No.8220 of 2022Inderjeet Singh                                                      ...... Petitioner\n                                     Versus\n    State of Himachal Pradesh and others                                 ......Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                .8.     CWP No.8221 of 2022Dev Raj                                                              ...... Petitioner\n                                     Versus\n\n\n\n\n\n    State of Himachal Pradesh and others                                 ......Respondents9      CWP No.8222 of 2022Bhagat Ram                                                           ...... Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n\n                                     Versus\n    State of Himachal Pradesh and others                                 ......Respondents10.    CWP No.8223 of 2022Madan Lal\n                        r                                                ...... Petitioner\n\n                                     Versus\n    State of Himachal Pradesh and others                                 ......Respondents11.    CWP No.8847 of 2022Ajeet Kumar                                                          ...... Petitioner\n                                     Versus\n    State of Himachal Pradesh and others                                 ......Respondents\n\n\n\n\n    Coram:The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sabina, Acting Chief Justice\n    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.1Whether approved for reporting?For the Petitioners       :      Mr. Dheeraj Kanwar, Advocate.For the Respondents :            Mr. Mohinder Zharaick,                 Additional    Advocate\n                                     General, for the State.Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for the\n                                     Respondents/HRTC.1      Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2023 20:34:00 :::CIS3Sabina, Acting Chief Justice (oral)\n\n          Vide this order, above mentioned petitions would be disposed of, as\n\n    the issue involved in all the cases is the same..2.    Facts are taken up from CWP No.2681 of 2022.3.    The petitioners have filed petitions underArticle 226of the\n\n\n\n\n\n    Constitution of India, seeking mainly the following relief(s):-"a.    The Honorable Court may be pleased to direct the\n                 Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for\n\n\n\n\n\n                 appointment as Inspector from the date of his promotion as\n                 Driving Instructor with all consequential benefits till date.\n                 Or in alternative\n\n                 the Respondents may consider praying the Petitioner same\n\n                 pay and grade pay as an Inspector is receiving even though\n                 the Petitioner is serving as Driving Instructor and all the\n                 promotional avenues open to Inspector may also be made\n                 available to the present petitioner by the Respondents in the\n\n\n\n                 same time period as his colleagues who are serving as\n                 Inspectors and of equal seniority since such inception.b).    Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ or\n                 direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit directing the\n\n\n\n\n\n                 Respondent to take the option from the petitioner for\n                 appointment as Inspector/Driving Instructor. To make rules\n\n\n\n\n\n                 for appointment as Inspector.c).    Consequentially Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other\n                 appropriate writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit,\n                 directing the Respondent to consider the Petitioner to be\n                 appointed as Inspector."::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2023 20:34:00 :::CIS44.    Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the\n\n    petitioners were initially appointed as Drivers with the respondents-Corporation. Petitioners were promoted to the posts of Driving Instructor,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   .although, no option had been sought from them at the time of their\n\n    promotion.    Drivers could be promoted as Yard Master, Inspector or\n\n\n\n\n\n    Instructor (Driving).   Hence, it was incumbent upon the respondents-Corporation to have sought option from the petitioners with regard to their\n\n    choice for further promotion.5.    Learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation, on the other\n\n    hand, has opposed the petitions and has submitted that all the petitioners\n\n    who were working as Drivers were eligible for promotion to the posts of\n\n    Instructor (Driving). After initiation of promotion process, petitioners were\n\n    promoted to the posts of Instructor (Driving). The said promotion orders\n\n\n    were served upon the petitioners and they joined as Instructors (Driving).Petitioners had never made any representation against their promotion\n\n\n\n\n    orders and had accepted the promotion orders without any agitation.6.    After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion\n\n\n\n\n\n    that the instant petitions deserve dismissal. Admittedly, petitioners were\n\n\n\n\n\n    working as Drivers and have been promoted as Instructors (Driving).Petitioners had joined as Instructors (Driving) in pursuance to the\n\n    promotion orders passed in their favour. Although, it is the case of the\n\n    petitioners that they had written letter to the Corporation objecting to their\n\n    transfer, but the said fact has been denied by the respondents in their\n\n    reply. Moreover, no such letter has been placed on record to substantiate::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2023 20:34:00 :::CIS5the plea taken by the petitioners that they had objected to their transfer.Petitioners were promoted as Instructors (Driving) in the year, 2020, but\n\n    they have filed the writ petitions in the year, 2022. This fact, in itself,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 .shows that the petitioners had duly accepted their promotion orders\n\n    voluntarily and the said fact leads to the inference that they had opted to\n\n\n\n\n\n    be promoted as Instructors (Driving). Apparently, filing of writ petitions\n\n    appears to be an afterthought as they might have come to know that\n\n    promotion to the post of Inspectors would lead to better promotional\n\n\n\n\n\n    avenues.7.    In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, no\n\n    ground for interference is made out.8.    Dismissed.Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand\n\n\n    disposed of.( Sabina )\n                                               Acting Chief Justice\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                               ( Satyen Vaidya)\n                                                     Judge\n    April 17, 2023 (KS)::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2023 20:34:00 :::CIS