2026:HHC:28534 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No.4857 of 2019 Decided on: 13.07.2026 Ashok Kumar ...Petitioner Versus The Kangra Cooperative Primary Agriculture Rural Development Bank and another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ______________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Prantap Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition has prayed that a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent-Bank to grant him promotional benefits to the post of Clerk w.e.f. 01.07.1989 instead of 2000, with all consequential benefits. 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed as Peon in the respondent- 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:28534 Bank on 01.01.1981 and thereafter his services were regularized w.e.f. 06.03.1981. Vide order dated 11.05.1989 (Annexure P-1), he was transferred to Branch Office, Nurpur to discharge duties of Clerk/Recovery Supervisor. However, later on, vide office order dated 01.09.1990 (Annexure P-2), he was recalled to join his original post of Peon. It has been averred in the petition that since the petitioner was not granted the pay of higher post, he approached this Court by way of CWP No.814 of 1992, seeking redressal of his grievances. However, the said writ petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction vide order dated 12.09.1997. Thereafter, he filed OA (D) No.403/98 in respect of the same grievance and during the pendency of the Original Application, the respondent-Bank had assured him that in case he withdraws the Original Application, all legitimate claims, including the promotion, would be considered favourably. However, the said oral assurance of the respondent-Bank proved to be false. It has further been averred that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Grade-IV employee, however, the pay for the period he worked on the higher post was not released in his favour. Thereafter, he again approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No.2669 of 2006, 3 2026:HHC:28534 which after abolition of the learned Tribunal was transferred to this court and registered as CWP(T) No.13998 of 2008 and disposed of on 03.03.2011. This Court while disposing of the writ petition had specifically mentioned that it has come in the reply that no person junior to the petitioner has been considered for promotion and consequently a direction was given to the respondent-Bank to consider the case of the petitioner with all consequential benefits, as and when his turn comes. 3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dated 03.03.2011 did not avail any remedy and now by way of instant petition has claimed that he may be considered to be appointed to the post of Clerk in the year 2000. It has been averred in the petition that the petitioner had made a representation on 18.07.2011 under the relevant Bank’s Service Rules under Chapter 6/20 (b), where it is clearly laid down that if an employee has worked for more than 10 months or the higher post, he is entitled for the promotional benefits. Since the petitioner had worked for about 14 months on the higher post of Clerk/Recovery Officer, he was entitled to promotion as Clerk/Recovery Officer w.e.f. 01.07.1989. There is a clear shortfall of 11 years, which has material bearing on the service conditions of the petitioner 4 2026:HHC:28534 and thus he may be deemed to have been appointed as Clerk w.e.f. 01.07.1989. 4. The respondent-Bank despite granting may opportunities did not file reply to the petition and right to file the same was closed by the order of the Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 6. No doubt, as per office order dated 11.05.1989, the petitioner was transferred to Branch office, Nurpur to discharge the duties of Clerk/Recovery Supervisor, but vide office order dated 01.09.1990, the said orders were recalled and the petitioner was again posted as Peon. The petitioner did not challenge the order dated 01.09.1990. When the petitioner had earlier filed the Original Application claiming that juniors to him were considered for promotion, which application came to be transferred to this Court and registered as CWP(T) No.13998 of 2008, this Court had categorically observed that it has come in the reply that no person junior to him has been considered for promotion and consequently, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent-Bank to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion with all consequential benefits, as and when his turn comes. Since in the earlier proceedings, 5 2026:HHC:28534 it has come that no person junior to the petitioner has been promoted, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, especially when he has not challenged the order dated 03.03.2011 passed by this Court. 7. Resultantly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 13th July, 2026 Judge (naveen)