Simro Devi vs State of H.P. and Others

Justice Sanjay Karol, J.—It is petitioner''s grievance that benefit of promotion to the post of P.G.T. has not been accorded to her. Petitioner was engaged as a C&V Teacher (Home Science) w.e.f. 1.9.1992. At that time, there were no rules for promotion, enabling or entitling the petitioner to be considered for promotion to the post of T.G.T. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has retired.

According to petitioner, her case has not been considered, in accordance with the rules, which subsequently entitled her for being considered, as a C&V Teacher, for promotion to the post of T.G.T. Whether petitioner is otherwise eligible for promotion in the C&V category, it is to be ascertained by the respondents themselves after looking into the service record of the petitioner.

Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner''s case for promotion to the post of T.G.T., from the date when she was otherwise entitled to, in accordance with the R&P Rules. While taking such decision, respondents shall take into account the benefits accorded to persons mentioned in the order dated 20th June, 1995 (Annexure PE) who allegedly are similarly situated to that of the petitioner. Necessary action shall positively be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.