Holding

The Tribunal’s direction to treat the respondent as promoted to Stenographer with effect from 31 May 1966 was without jurisdiction and untenable, and the respondent could not re‑agitate the same promotion claim after having accepted and continued in the clerical cadre.

Summary

K.R. Gulati, a substantive Junior Scale Stenographer in the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (HPSEB), was promoted ad‑hoc to Head Clerk and was not considered for the upgrade of Junior Stenographers to Senior Stenographers in 1976. The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that he was entitled to be considered for promotion in his own stenography stream, but the Board's Departmental Promotion Committee later deemed him unsuitable because he had "lost touch" with stenography. Gulati approached the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which directed the Board to treat him as having been promoted to Stenographer with effect from 31 May 1966 and to grant all consequential benefits. The Board appealed, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction as the Board did not exist in 1966, the State Government and the junior employee were not parties, and the claim was stale. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's direction was wholly without jurisdiction and that Gulati, having accepted and continued in the clerical line and retired, could not re‑agitate the same claim. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order and dismissed the application, with no costs awarded.

Issues considered

Whether non‑consideration of the respondent for promotion to the upgraded Senior Stenographer post infringed his right to consideration under Article 16 of the Constitution.
Whether the respondent, having accepted and continued in the clerical line, could revive his claim for promotion in the stenography stream.
Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to direct promotion of the respondent with retrospective effect to a date preceding the Board's existence and without the State Government and the junior employee as parties.
Whether, in view of the respondent's long service in the clerical cadre and retirement, it was necessary for the Court to order reconsideration of his promotion in the stenography line.

Legislation cited

Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948s. 15, s. 5, s. 79(c)

Subjects

service lawpromotiondepartmental promotion committeeArticle 16seniorityjurisdictionadministrative tribunalretroactive promotionpublic service employment

Judgment

A H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
v.
SHRI K.R. GULATI

FEBRUARY 3, 1998

B [S.·SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

Service Law :

Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion
C (Regulations) for Ministerial Employees of the Board, 1972: Promotion-
Substantive Junior Scale Stenographer-Promoted on adhoc basis to the
post of Head Clerk-18 Posts of Junior scale Stenographers upgraded to
Senior scale Stenographers-Departmental Promotion Committee holding
him unsuitable for the post of Senior Stenographer on the ground that he has
lost touch in stenography-Tribunal's direction to treat him as promoted
D with retrospective effect with all consequential benefits-On appeal, held,
the respondent being a substantive Junior Scale Stenographer, entitled to be
considered for promotion to the post of Senior scale Stenographer-The
Departmental Promotion Committee erred in holding him unsuitable merely
on the ground that he had lost touch in stenography-Direction of the
E Tribunal is wholly without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law-Constitution
of India; Articles 14 and 16.

The respondent initially joined tlie Public Works Department as a
Clerk and was subsequently appointed and confirmed on the post of Steno-
typist. On the constitution of the appellant-Board the Department of Multi
F Purpose Project & Power was closed. The said Board took over the services
of all the erstwhile employees of the Department on fresh contract. The K
appellant-Board issued an offer of appointment to the respondent, which
he accepted and became an employee of the appellant-Board as Junior Scale
Stenographer. Subsequently he was promoted on adhoc basis to the post of
G Head Clerk.In the meantime 18 posts of Junior Scale Stenographers were
upgraded to Senior scale Stenographers, but respondent was not considered
for the upgraded post of Senior Stenographer.

Aggrieved, he filed a writ petition and the High Court held that the
respondent should be considered for promotion to the post of Senior
H Stenographer. However, the Departmental Promotion Committee taking the
502
H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. K.R. GULA TI 503
view that the respondent has Jost touch with Stenography and typing, did not A
recommend his case for the post of Senior Scale Stenographer. The
respondent filed a contempt petition which was dismissed. The second contempt
petition filed by the respondent with others also stood dismissed. The
respondent then approached the Tribunal which directed the appellant-Board
to treat the respondent as having been promoted as Stenographer w.e.f. B
31.5.1996 with all consequential benefits on the ground that the respondent
being the holder of the post of Steno-typist on substantive basis was entitled
to be considered for promotion in his own stream; since an employee junior
to the respondent was promoted to the post of stenographer, respondent would
be entitled to consequential benefits above him.

Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the appellant-Board has filed
c
the present appeal,

On behalf of the appellant-Board it was contended that the Tribunal
could not have given a direction to the Board to promote the respondent w.e.f.
31.5.1996 when the Board itself was not in existence on that date; the D
Tribunal· erred in issuing the impugned directions in the absence of State
Government and the junior employees being made party to the proceedings;
when the resP.ondent has accepted the post of Lower Division Clerk and
having been promoted to the post of Head Clerk, there is no infringment of
his rights in not considering him for the upgraded post of Senior
Stenographer. E
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. In the impugned order the direction of the Tribunal to treat
the respondent as having been promoted as a Stenographer with effect from
31st May, 1966 is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as such a direction F
->< could not have been given to the Board when the Borad itself was not in
existence on that date. The respondent was an employee of the state
Government but it was not a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal.
The aforesaid direction was given since an employee junior to the respondent
in his earstwhile post of steno-typist got promotion to the post of Stenographer G
and he was also not a party to the proceedings. A cause of action which arose
on 31.5.1966 could not have been assailed before the Tribunal by filing an
application in the year 1992; allowing such a belated and stale claim, would
upset the entire cadre management and will not be in the interest of justice.
[512-A-C)
2.1. The decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee that the H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 1 S.C.R.
A respondent is unsuitable for the post of Senior Stenographer merely on the
ground that he lost touch in Stenography was wholly erroneous. Since under
the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion
(Regulations) for Ministerial Employees of the Board, 1972 as well as the
Appendix, the criteria for promotion to the non-selection post being seniority,
B the Departmental Promotion Committee could not have held the respondent
unsuitable for the post of Senior Steno;,:rapher. 1511-C-D]

2.2. The respondent had been regularly absorbed as a Junior
Stenographer under the Board. Under the Regulations read with Appendix
'A', promotion to the post of Head Clerk, no doubt, was permissible both from
C UDCs as well as from Junior Scale Stenographers in the ratio of 9:1 and
the respondent had been promoted to the post of Head Clerk merely on an
adhoc basis and he had no substantive right to the post of Head Clerk on that
date. The posts of Junior Stenographers were upgraded to Senior Scale
Stenographers. The respondent being a substantive Junior Scale
D Stenographer had therefore, a right to be considered for promotion to the
post of Senior Scale Stenographer and by such non-consideration there has
been an infringement of Article 16 of the Constitution. [510-G-H; 511-A)

3. The respondent could not have re-agitated the claim 'by filing a fresh
application before the Tribunal challenging the very same cause of action
E against which he did file a writ petition and withdrew the same. (511-H]

4. The respondent has been continuing in the clerical line ever since
1974 on being promoted to the post of Head Clerk. In the meantime he got
further promotions in the said line and has ultimately retired from the
services on attaining the age of superannuation. At this length of time it
F would not be in the interest of justice to direct the Board to reconsider the
question of his promotion in the Stenography line and give consequential
promotional benefits thereon. [512-F]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10189 of
G 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.7.95 of the Himachal Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal, Shimla, in O.A. No. 1374of1992.

Raju Ramachandran, K.K. Lahiri, Ejaj Maqbool, Braj K. Mishra and
H Gaurav Kumar for the Appellant.
"
\

H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. K.R. GULATI [G.B. PATTANAIK, J.] 505

.. Devendra Singh, Ms. Diva Singh and Ms. Manu Mridul for the
Respondent.
A

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G.B. PATTANAIK, J. This appeal is directed against.the judgment dated
14th July, 1995 passed by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in B
O.A. No. 1374of1992. By the impugned judgment the Tribunal has directed
the appellant Board to treat the respondent as having been promoted as
Stenographer in the pay scale of RS. 106-200 with effect from 31st May, 1966
and give him all consequential benefits flowing therefrom in his own stream
of Stenography. It was further directed that there should be no recovery from C
the respondent who has worked against various posts in the meantime.

The brief facts leading to the filing of application by the respondent
before the Tribunal may be stated hereunder. The respondent joined the
Public Works Department of the Government ofHimachal Pradesh as a Clerk
in November, 1958. While so continuing he was appointed as a Steno-typist D
on July 18, 1964 and was confirmed against the. said post with effect from !st
January, 1972. On 2nd April, 1971, the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity
Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board) was constituted in exercise of
powers under Section 5 of the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. With
effect from 31st August, 1971 the Department of Multi Purpose Project &
Power of the Government ofHimachal Pradesh was closed. On account of the E
creation of the Board on and from the said date, on abolition of the Multi
Purpose Project & Power Department of the Government, the Board took over
the services of all the erstwhile employees of the department on fresh contn.ct
of employment being executed by those employees but it was clearly stipulated
that the employees· will continue as employees of the Government until their F
final absorption by the Board or their services stand terminated in accordance
with law. It may be stated that the department of Multi Purpose Project &
Power of the Government issued the notice of discharge of the respondent
from the service on account of the closure of the department by letter dated
. 31st August, 1971. On September 9, 1971 the appellant Board issued an offer
of appointment to the respondent intimating therein that the Board would be G
prepared to take the respondent on semi permanent basis as a Lower Division
Clerk in the grade of RS. 110-250 and in ad hoc capacity as Stenographer in
the grade of RS. 160-400. It was also clearly stipulated that the respondent
will have no right for continuance against the post of Stenographer until he
is appointed against the said post on regular basis by a competent authority H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) l S.C.R.

A of the Board. The respondent was called upon to indicate as to whether he
'l'
would be agreeable to the terms and conditions mentioned in the offer of
appointment as stated above. By letter dated 9th November, 1971, the
respondent himself made an application for the post of Lower Division Clerk
on permanent basis under the State Electricity Board and to allow him to
continue on ad hoc basis against the post of Stenographer. The Board framed
B a set of Regulations to regulate the recruitment, promotion and confirmation '1
of the ministerial services under the Board, in exercise of powers conferred
by Section 79(c) read with Section 15 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948
called the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion
(Regulations) for Ministerial Employees of the Board, 1972 (hereinafter referred
c to as 'the Regulations') which became operative with effect from !st July,
1972. The respondent became an employee of the Board as a Junior Scale
Stenographer by order dated 7th June, 1973 with effect from 1st January, 1972.
Under the Regulations appointment to different posts under the Board could
be made by direct recruitment as well as· by promotion and the criteria for
promotion was on the basis of recommendation of a duly constituted
D departmental promotion committee which committee in tum would recommend J.
in case of non-selection post by virtue of the seniority of the employee and
in case ofa selection post by virtue of merit which is apparent from Regulation
5 providing procedure for appointment. It was also indicated therein that the
departmental promotion committee shall be guided by the procedure approved
E by the Board for selection post. Regulation 8 provided that the method of
recruitment, promotion, minimum qualification, period of probation etc. for
each of the Board's service are as set forth in the Appendices 'A' and 'B'.
Under Appendix 'A' the post of Head Clerk/Head Assistant in the pay-scale
of RS. 225-500 could be filled up by promotion from amongst the UDCs who
opted for administration wing as well as by promotion from amongst the
F Stenographers in Junior scale who have qualified in the departmental
)"
examination meant for clerks. The post of Head Clerk was a non-selection
post. The ratio between the two feeder cadres as indicated above is 9: 1. In
other words, as against 10 vacancies in the post of Head Clerk, 9 would be
filled up from the UDCs and one from the Stenographer Junior Scale. The
G respondent had been promoted as a Head Clerk in accordance with the
aforesaid procedure on 23rd August, 1974. While he was so continuing by
order dated 27th March, 1976, 18 posts of Junior Scale Stenographers stood
upgraded to Senior Scale Stenographers. As the respondent had already been
promoted as Head Clerk since 23rd August, 1974 he was not considered for
being appointed to any one of these upgraded posts of Senior Stenographers.
H Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Board he filed a writ petition
H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDv. KR GULATI [G.B. PATTANAIK, J] 507
some times in June 1976 which was registered as Civil Writ Petition No. 336 A
of 1976. The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed the said writ petition filed
by the respondent by judgment dated 11th September, 1981, by coming to the
conclusion that the respondent having been promoted to the post of Head
Clerk merely on ad hoc basis could legitimately claim to be appointed against
the upgraded post of Senior Stenographer by exercising his option to revert
to his substantive post Jr. Stenographer. The High Court, therefore, directed B
the Board to consider the respondent's case for promotion to the post of Sr.
Scale Stenographer under the Rules and Regulations existing when those
posts became available. This decision of the learned Single Judge of the
Himachal Pradesh High Court became final as the Letters Patent Appeal No.
35 of 1981 filed by the Board stood dismissed by the Division Bench on 18th C
November, 1991. A departmental promotion committee pursuance to the
direction of the High Court in the aforesaid judgment considered the case of
the respondent for promotion to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer but
being of the view that the respondent has lost touch with the stenography
and typing ever since his promotion and absorption as a Head Clerk in
August, 1974, would not be suitable for the post of Senior Scale Stenographer, D
• did not recommend his case for the post of senior stenographer. The
departmental promotion committee, therefore, recommended the promotion of
the respondent to the post of Head Clerk/ Head Assistant. The respondent
then filed a contempt petition alleging that the direction of the High Court has
not been carried out which stood dismissed by order dated 27th June, 1983 E
on a finding that in the facts and circumstances it cannot be held that there
has been a violation of the court's direction. The respondent along with three
others filed a second contempt petition, which was registered as CCP No. 2 ·
of 1984 but that also stood dismissed. by order dated 25th May, 1984. The
respondent, therefore, filed a fresh writ petition which was registered as Civil
Writ Petition No. 431 of 1984 but later on chose to withdraw the same as F
Board itself issued certain office orders on July 12, 1985 and the writ petition
was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 12th September, 1985. The
respondent then filed a fresh writ petition along with one Narotam Dutt
Sharma which was registered as CWP No. 1088 of 1985 and that petition stood
transferred to the State Administrative Tribunal on constitution of the Tribunal G
and was registered as Transfer Application No. 741of1986. Shri Sharma had
made a representation to the Secretary of the Board. The Tribunal being
cognizant of the fact that a representation by one of the petitioners is pending
before the Board, disposed of the application by order dated July 11, 1991
directing the Board to consider the representation and render a reasoned
decision within two months. The Board took a final decision on the H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A representation of Shri Sharma and passed a reasoned order on 19th November,
1991 which was placed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal merely took that
decision into consideration and held that the Transfer Application No. 741 of
1986 has become infructuous. The respondent then filed a fresh application
before the Tribunal which was registered as 0.A. No. 1374 of 1992 out of
which the present appeal arises. The Tribunal disposed of the application in
B favour of the respondP,nt by order dated 14th July, 1995 by issuing directions
as already stated and hence the present appeal. '1'

In the impugned judgment the Tribunal came to hold that the direction
of the High Court dated 11th September, 1981 in CWP No. 336 of 1976 holding
C that the respondent was entitled to be considered for promotion in his own
stream of stenography did not authorise the departmental promotion committee
to hold him unsuitable for the post of Senior Stenographer and to recommend
the promotion of the respondent to the post of Head Clerk which was done
by the Board by order dated 11th August, 1982. The Tribunal, therefore,
reiterated that the respondent being the holder of the post of Steno-typist on
D substantive basis was entitled to be considered for promotion in his own
stream and that not having been done, the rights of the respondent have been
•
infringed. The Tribunal also took into account the fact that the respondent
has been promoted in the clerical line not only to the post of Head Clerk but
to the still higher post of Office Superintendent and thought it fit not to quash
E the said promotion notwithstanding the earlier finding that the respondent
was only entitled to be considered for promotion in his own stream of
stenography. The Tribunal then considered the question as to what direction
could be given and being of the view that the respondent was senior to ·one
Shri S.S. Kaushal in the cadre of Steno-typist was entitled to be promoted to
the post of Stenographer in the pay scale of Rs. I 06-200 with effect from 31st
F May, 1996 and would be entitled to further consequential benefits above Shri
Kaushal. Ultimately, the Tribunal directed the Board to treat the respondent
as having been promoted as Stenographer with effect from 31st may, 1966 and
further directed to give all consequential benefits flowing therefrom in his
own stream of stenography only. It was further observed that there would be
G no recovery from the respondent who in the meantime has worked against
several clerical posts.

Mr. Raju Ramchandran the learned senior counsel appearing for the
Board contended that on 31st May, 1966 the Board itself had not been·
constituted and the Board came into existence only in August, 1971. On that
H date the respondent was an employee of the State of Himachal Pradesh. In

'""
HP STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDr K.R. GULATI [G.B. PATTANAIK, J .1 509
the absence of State of Himachal Pradesh being a party to the proceedings A
(
and in the absence of said Shri Kaushal a party to the proceedings the
Tribunal could not have issued the impugned direction of promoting the
respondent as a Stenographer with effect from 3 I st may, 1966 and the said
direction on the face of it is without jurisdiction. Mr. Raju Ramchandran the
learned senior counsel further contended that under the Board when the
respondent accepted the post of Lower Division Clerk and under the
B
Regulations of the Board even a junior stenographer could be promoted to
the post of Head Clerk, there was no infirmity with the promotion of the
respondent as Head Clerk since 23rd of August, 1974 and under such
circumstances non-consideration of the respondent for one of the upgraded
posts of senior stenographer in 1976 does not constitute an infraction of his C
right of consideration under Article 16 of the Constitution. Mr. Raju
Ramachandran also further contended that the respondent having filed a writ
petition which was registered as CWP No. 431 of 1984 challenging the decision
of the departmental pro1i1otion committee which considered the case of the
respondent for promotion in accordance with the direction of the High Court
in CWP Ko. 336 of 1976 but found him unsuitable to hold the post of senior D
stenographer in view of respondent having lost touch with stenography and
ultimately withdrawing the said writ petition itself would indicate that the
respondent accepted the position of continuance in the clerical line. Mr. Raju
Ramchandran the learned senior counsel lastly contended that the respondent
ever since his promotion to the post of Head Clerk in 1974 having continued E
in the clerical line and having been promoted to the next higher grades and
in the meantime having retired on attaining the age of superannuation, the
impugned direction of the Tribunal will be futile exercise and will not be in
the interest of justice. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other
hand vehemently argued that the respondent has all along been agitating the
fact that he should be considered for promotion in his own stream namely in F
the stenography line and notwithstanding the earlier direction of the High
Court in favour of the respondent the Board. has been ignoring the same and
as such the rights of an employee under Article 16 of the Constitution has
been grossly infringed and the Tribunal was fully justified in issuing the
impugned directions. The learned counsel, however, fairly stated that the G
direction of the Tribunal tci the effect that the respondent should be treated
as a Stenographer with effect from 31st May, 1966 in the absence of the State
Government and Shri Kaushal being a party to the proceedings was probably
not proper. But in any event the rights of the respondent for being considered
for promoiion in the stenography line could not have been infringed in the
manner in which the Board has refused to consider particularly when the H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1998] I S.C.R.

A promotional posts in the stenography line are non-selection posts where
promotion is based merely on the seniority, justifies the direction the Tribunal
and this Court can modify the same to the extent required since part of the
direction has become unimplementable by the Board. The learned counsel
also urged that no doubt the respondent has retired in the meantime but by
considering his case for promotion in stenography line may ultimately get him
B some pensionary benefits ar.d that should not be denied to him.
Having considered the rival submissions and having examined the
Regulations of the Board as well as different orders passed by the Board
promoting the respondent as a Head Clerk and further promoting him to still
higher grades in the clerical line the questions that arise for our consideration
C are:
I. Whether non-consideration of the respondent for being promoted
against an upgraded post of Senior Stenographer constitutes an
infraction of his right of consideration under Article 16 of the
Constitution?
2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case it can
D
be said that the respondent accepted his continuance in the clerical
line, and therefore, should not be allowed to claim again his reversion
to the stenography line?
3. Whether the impugned directions of the Tribunal are at all justified
particularly in the context of the facts in relation to a state of affairs
E in the year 1966 when the Board itself had not come into existence and
in the absence of the State Government as a party to the proceedings
and so also in the absence of Shri Kaushal as a party to the
Proceedings?

4. The respondent having continued in the clerical line since his
F promotion as Head clerk in the year 1974 and having been granted
further promotion in the said line and ultimately having retired, whether
it is at all necessary to direct the Board to reconsider his case for
promotion in the Stenography line?

G So far as the first question is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the
respondent had been regularly absorbed as a Junior Stenographer under the
Board by order dated 7th June, 1973 with effect from !st June, 1972. Under
the Regulations read with Appendix 'A' prmnotion to the post of Head Clerk
no doubt was permissible both from the UDCs as well as from the stenography
junior scale in the ration of 9: I and the respondent had been promoted to the
H post of Head Clerk on 23rd August, 1974 but the said promotion of the
HP STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. K.R. GULATI [G.B. PA TTANAIK, J] 511
· respondent was merely on an ad hoc basis and he had no substantive right A
"( to the post of Head Clerk on the date the posts of Junior stenographers were
upgraded to the senior scale stenographers i.e. on 27th march, I 976. The
respondent being a substantive junior scale stenographer had therefore a
right to be considered for promotion to the post of senior scale stenographer
in March, 1976 and by such non-consideration there has been an infringement
of Article 16 of the Constitution. In fact the High Court held so by its
B
'r judgment dated 11th September, I 981 passed in CWP No. 336 of 1976 which
was upheld by the Division Bench by order dated I 8th November, 1981 m
dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal No. 35of1981.
It is in this context an ancillary question required to be answered
namely whether the departmental promotion committee could have held the c
respondent unsuitable for the post of senior stenographer merely on the
ground that he has lost touch in stenography. The answer to this must be
in the negative. Since under the Regulations as well as the Appendix, the
~
criteria for promotion to the non-selection post being seniority the departmental
promotion committee could not have held the respondent unsuitable for the D
;._ post of senior stenographer. The decision of the departmental promotion
i committee, therefore, was wholly erroneous.

Coming now to the second question, it would appear form the facts
already narrated as well as the records of this appeal which we have carefully
scrutinised, the respondent has all along been continuing in the clerical line E
eversince 23rd of August, 1974. Subsequent to the decision of the High Court
in CWP No. 336of1976 and the recommendation of the departrnen\al promotion
committee which considered the case of the respondent pursuance to the
direction given by the High Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the Board
passed an order on 11th August, 1982 reverting the respondant to the scale
of junior stenographer with effect from June 8, 1976 and by yet another office F
-"'( order said respondent was again promoted to the post of Head Clerk. The
respondent having failed in the contempt proceedings initiated at his behest
did file a writ petition No. 431 of 1984 but withdrew the same on September
12, 1985. Under these circumstances, we are inclined to accept the submission
of Mr. Raju Ramchandran the learned senior counsel appearing for the Board
G
that the respondent accepted his promotion in the clerical line and continued
t- thereunder and as such was not entitled to re-open the matter again by filing
a fresh petition before the Tribunal. On the facts and circumstances of the
present case, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent could not
have re-agitated the claim by filing a fresh application before the Tribunal
challenging the very same cause of action which arose on ! Ith August, 1982 H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] I S.C.R.

A against which the respondent did file a writ petition No. 431 of 1984 and
withdrew the same on 12th September, 1985.
r
Coming Now to the third question on the face of the impugned order
the direction of the Tribunal to treat the respondent as having been promoted
as a Stenographer with effect from 31st May, 1966 is wholly without jurisdiction
B inasmuch as such a direction could not have been given to the Board when
the Board itself was not in existence on that date. Secondly, on that date the T
respondent was an employee of the State Government and the State Government
was not a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal. Thirdly, the aforesaid
·.
direction has been given as one S.S. Kaushal who was junior to the respondent
in his erstwhile post of Steno-typist got promotion to the post of Stenographer
c and that Shri Kaushal was not a party to <he proceedings. Lastly, a cause of
action, if at all, which arise on 3 lst may, 1966 could not have been assailed
before the Tribunal by filing an application in the year J992 and by allowing
such belated and stale claim, would upset the entire cadre management and
r-
will not be in the interest of justice. Learned counsel for the respondent, ',
D therefore in course of hearing very fairly stated that the said direction of the
Tribunal was probably not proper and we have, therefore, no hesitation in ,(
holding that the aforesaid direction is wholly unjustified and unsustainable \
in law and we accordingly quash the same.

The onl~ question that survives for consideration is whether in the
E facts and circumstances as narrated above it would at all be necessary for this
Court to issue any direction to the Board in modification of the one given by
the Tribunal and to direct that the question of promotion of the respondent
in the stenography line be reconsidered. As has been stated earlier the
respondent has been continuing in the clerical line eversince 1974 on being
promoted to the post of Head Clerk. In the meantime he has got further
F promotions in the said line and has ultimately retired from the services on
attaining the age of superannuation. At this length of time it would not be
in the interest of justice to direct the Board to reconsider the question of his ""'
promotion in the stenography line and give consequential promotional benefits
thereon notwithstanding our conclusion on the first question formulated
G above.

In the aforesaid premises, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned
~
judgment of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1374
of 1992 and dismiss the said O.A. There will be no order as to costs.

H S.V .K.l. Appeal allowed. .
•'