Disposed¶19

Hansa Dutt Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC5 May 2025WPSB/256/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

retrospective promotion; Senior Management Officer; notional promotion; junior promoted over senior; ACR not in prescribed performa; Annual Confidential Reports; vacancy available; mandamus; representation dated 09.12.2015; Annexure no.7; Rajya Sampatti Adhikari Uttarakhand; decision within four months; writ petition disposed without merits adjudication; Hansa Dutt Joshi; State of Uttarakhand; High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital; double bench; 2025

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2 (Rajya Sampatti Adhikari, Uttarakhand) to take a decision on the petitioner's representation dated 09.12.2015 (Annexure no.7 to the writ petition) one way or the other, within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order; no promotion direction granted. ¶19

Hansa Dutt Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who retired on 30.09.2015 and whose promotion to the post of Senior Management Officer on 12.09.2014 was allegedly denied because his Annual Confidential Reports were not in the prescribed performa despite availability of vacancy, is entitled to a mandamus directing his promotion from 12.09.2014.

¶11

Court's answer

The court did not adjudicate the promotion claim on merits; it disposed of the writ petition with a direction to respondent no.2 (Rajya Sampatti Adhikari, Uttarakhand) to decide the petitioner's pending representation dated 09.12.2015 one way or the other, within four months from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Hansa Dutt Joshi, who retired from service on 30.09.2015, sought a mandamus for promotion to the post of Senior Management Officer from 12.09.2014, the date on which three Management Officers were promoted to that post while his claim was ignored, allegedly because his Annual Confidential Reports were not in the prescribed performa; counsel also urged that a vacancy was available. State counsel responded that no junior had been promoted ahead of the petitioner, that notional promotion arises only where a junior is wrongly promoted over a senior, and that any grievance about non-promotion despite vacancies could be pursued by representation. Counsel for the petitioner confirmed that such a representation dated 09.12.2015 lay pending before respondent no.2, Rajya Sampatti Adhikari, Uttarakhand. Without deciding the promotion claim on merits, the double-member Bench (judgment per Manoj Kumar Tiwari J.; Ashish Naithani J.) disposed of the writ petition, directing respondent no.2 to decide that representation one way or the other within four months of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

¶1

2025:UHC:3421-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

HON’BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. HON’BLE MR. ASHISH NAITHANI, J

¶4

WRIT PETITION (S/B) No.256 of 2016

¶5

Hansa Dutt Joshi …Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Uttarakhand & others …Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, learned counsel. Counsel for State Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned DAG.

¶9

JUDGMENT : ( PER HON’BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J)

¶10

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief:-

¶11

“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 & 2 to promote the petitioner on the post of Senior Management Officer from 12.09.2014”

¶12

It is not in dispute that petitioner retired from service on 30.09.2015. According to him, on 12.09.2014 three persons serving as Management Officer were promoted as Senior Management Officer, ignoring his claim. Thus, petitioner has sought a direction to promote him from the date the other three persons were promoted on the ground that he was denied promotion on the ground that his Annual Confidential Reports were not in the prescribed performa.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner cannot be penalized for his Annual Confidential Reports not being in the prescribed performa. He further submits that vacancy was also

¶14

¶15

2025:UHC:3421-DB

¶16

available, yet petitioner was not considered for promotion.

¶17

Learned State Counsel, however, submits that it is not the case of the petitioner that any person junior to him was promoted as Senior Management Officer on 12.09.2014. He submits that notional promotion can be claimed when a junior person is promoted by ignoring claim of his senior, then such senior person can claim promotion from the date his junior was wrongly promoted. He, however, submits that if petitioner has any grievance against his non promotion despite availability of vacancies, then he can make a representation.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that representation made by petitioner is pending before the respondent no.2 i.e. Rajya Sampatti Adhikari, Uttarakhand.

¶19

We accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to respondent no.2 to take a decision on petitioner’s representation dated 09.12.2015 (Annexure no.7 to the writ petition), one way or the other, within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶20

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J.

¶21

ASHISH NAITHANI, J.

¶22

Dt:05^th May, 2025 NR/

¶23

Hansa Dutt Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hansa Dutt Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharvan Kumar Gupta Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rajendra Singh and Another Vs Union Of India and Another

Rekha Devi Vs Secretary Ministry of Environment

Madan Gopal Pushkarana Vs State of Uttarakhand

Harsh Vardhan Mishra Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of Uttrakahand