Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rana Ram Jaswal vs High Court Of Himachal Pradesh& Others on 5 October, 2018
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur, Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.2830 of 2015
Decided on: 5.10.2018
Rana Ram Jaswal .... Petitioner.
.
Versus
High Court of Himachal Pradesh& Others ... Respondents.
__________________________________________________
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge
Whether approved for reporting1 :
For the Petitioner r:Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate
For Respondents :Mr. C.N.Singh, Advocate.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J (oral)
Petitioner, by the medium of this petition, has mainly prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(i) Order rejecting the case of the petitioner passed on 2.4.2014 may very kindly be quashed and set-aside with further directions to the respondents to treat the petitioner similar with that of case from Mandi Sessions Division and grant relaxation thereby promoting the petitioner as Senior Scale Stenographer from the date post fell vacant i.e. August, 2013 with all consequential benefits of seniority, pay etc.etc.
ii) That the impugned acts of the respondents in applying Rules, annexure P-2 retrospectively in the case of the petitioner, in law, being bad thus said impugned acts of applying Rules retrospectively may very kindly be set aside directing respondents to consider case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer on the basis of Rules of 1997 and promote petitioner as Senior Scale Stenographer from the date when post fell vacant i.e. August, 2013, with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority etc. etc. 1 Whether Reporters of local newspaper are permitted to see the judgment ?::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2018 22:58:09 :::HCHP
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though initially retrospective applicability of R & P Rules (Annexure P-2), was also assailed as prayed in prayer (ii), .
however, now, the petitioner does not press this prayer at this stage and restricts his claim to prayer (i) only claiming benefit of promotion from August, 2013.
3. It is matter of fact that before filing of present petition, application for granting relaxation in requisite educational qualification, exercising discretionary power, r had been rejected.
However, during the pendency of this petition, petitioner stands promoted after grant of relaxation by Hon'ble the Chief Justice in exercise of discretionary power. Now, only claim of the petitioner is that benefit of discretionary relief should have been given to him from the back date from which post fell vacant.
4. It is settled law that discretionary relief cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Unless discretion is exercised in favour of the employee to promote him in relaxation of R& P Rules, no employee has vested right to claim promotion without having requisite qualification prescribed in R& P Rules. Therefore, claim of petitioner for promotion from back date is not sustainable and hence rejected. Prayer of promotion in relaxation of educational qualification already stands granted.
::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2018 22:58:09 :::HCHP
5. In view of aforesaid factual matrix,nothing survives for adjudication in this petition and as such, the same is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any, .
(Vivek Singh Thakur)
Judge
( Sandeep Sharma )
5th October,2018 Judge
(shankar)
::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2018 22:58:09 :::HCHP