Laiq Ram vs H.P. Agro Industrial Packaging India Limited and Another

V.K. Sharma, J 1. The learned counsel for the respondents submits at the very outset that the present case is squarely covered under a judgment of this Court rendered by a learned Single Judge in CWP(T) No. 6214 of 2008, titled Flatu Ram v. H.P. Agro Industrial Packaging and Anr., decided on 09.08.2010, text whereof is to the following effect:

1). By means of this petition, the petitioner, who is an Exserviceman and employed in the H.P Agro Industrial Packaging India Limited has prayed that the respondent Corporation be directed to provide promotional avenues in respect of the post held by the applicant.

2). Admittedly, the applicant is an Exservice man. He joined the Indian Army on 19.4.1969 and was released from there on 31.5.1985. He joined civil service with the respondent corporation on 26.10.1990 and was posted as security guard. The petitioner has prayed that the respondent be directed to create some promotional avenues for Security Guard also. In support of this contention, the petitioner relies upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2008 Vol.6 S.L.R Page 180 State of H.P Versus Vijay Kumar Sharma in which was also a member. The judgment in the said case is not at all applicable to the facts of this case. In that case the initial appointment of the petitioner immediately on joining service was of Entomological Assistant (ClassIII) post. The employee was to join the said post and retire from the same post and therefore, the Division Bench of this Court had given a direction that the State of H.P should frame a scheme to provide promotional avenues to the applicant.

3). In the present case, the petitioner has not joined as Security Guard on his first employment. He already served the Indian Army for 16 years. Being an EXservice man was chosen and appointed as Security Guard in the respondent corporation. Along with the reply the respondents have also placed on record a copy of the"Assured Career Progression Scheme" which shows that after rendering a particular number of years of service the employee would be placed in the higher grade. The idea of promotion is only to give higher grade to the employee and since the respondents were themselve giving the benefit of the "Assured Career Scheme" to the petitioner, there is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. No costs.

A bare reading of the judgment in the case of Flatu Ram would go to show that the petitioner therein was an exserviceman and on retirement from the army service he was appointed as Security Guard with the respondents. He had also filed the petition with a prayer for issuance of a direction to the respondents to create promotional avenues for him, but the prayer did not find favour with the Court. The petitioner herein is also a similarly situate person. It being so, the claim set up by him can also not be granted keeping in view the settled legal position, as above. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.