JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk-cum-Typist on 25.2.1965 in the office of Directorate of Industry, Government of U.P., Kanpur. Thereafter the petitioner was absorbed in service of the U.P. Khadi Gramodyog Board, Lucknow, with effect from 1.4.1967. In the year 1972 the petitioner was promoted on the post of Accountant. On 1.1.1993 the petitioner was again promoted on the post of Noter Drafter in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/-
2. On 18.10.1996 persons junior to the petitioner had been promoted on the higher post of Assistant Development Officer (Grade 1) in the pay scale of Rs. 5,000/- to 8,000/-. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed representations before the authorities and when no action was taken, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 36431 of 2003 with a prayer for a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner in the higher pay scale of Rs. 5000/- to 8000/-. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 23.8.2003 with a direction to the respondent No. 2 to decide the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Thereafter by means of the impugned order dated 15.10.2003 the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent No. 2. Aggrieved by the said order dated 15.10.2003 the petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the said order and also for a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner on the post of Assistant Development Officer (Grade 1) with effect from 18.10.1996, on which date juniors to the petitioner had been promoted, as also for payment of the difference in the arrears of salary along with interest.
3. I have heard Sri H.P. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Sonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and have perused the record.
4. The main grounds on which the impugned order dated 15.10.2003 has been passed refusing the petitioner the benefit of promotion are firstly, that no person junior to the petitioner has been promoted in the scale of Rs. 5000/- to 8000/- and secondly, that the petitioner who is a Noter Drafter is not entitled for such promotion.
5. A perusal of Annexure- 3-A to the writ petition (which is a copy of the order dated 18.10.1996) by which 17 persons had been granted promotion, would go to who that persons junior to the petitioner have been granted promotion in the pay scale of Rs. 5000/- to 8000/-. Two persons placed at Serial Nos. 15 and 16, namely, Vashishtha Narain and Suresh Chandra Bajpai who were also junior to the petitioner and were posted as Noter Drafter in the same pay scale as that of the petitioner, had also been given promotion. These facts have not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit.
6. The only plea raised by the respondents is that the promotion has been granted in terms of the Service Rules framed by the U.P. Khadi Gramodyog Board, although in the same breadth the learned Counsel for the respondent has started that the said Rules, although framed, have not been approved by the competent authority and the same are still pending consideration. In such circumstances, in my view, since the Rules framed by the Board have yet not been approved, the same would not be applicable and thus it is not necessary for this Court to look into whether the promotions granted on 18.10.1996 and the denial of promotion to the petitioner are in terms of the said Rules.
7. Admittedly persons junior to the petitioner have been granted promotion by order dated 18.10.1996 and also two persons who were Noter Drafter, as the petitioner is, have also been granted such promotion. Accordingly, in my view, the two grounds taken in the impugned order for refusing to grant the promotion to the petitioner do not hold good. Thus the impugned order dated 15.10.2003 passed by the respondent No. 2 is liable to be quashed and is hereby set aside.
8. Considering the circumstances as discussed above and keeping in view the fact that the persons junior to the petitioner have been granted promotion by order dated 18.10.1996, the petitioner also ought to have been promoted alongwith those persons and thus the petitioner has been discriminated and would be entitled to promotion from the said date. Thus it is directed that the petitioner shall also be granted promotion on the post of Assistant Development Officer (Grade I) in the pay scale of Rs. 5000/- to 8000/- with effect from the date his juniors had been granted promotion vide order dated 18.10.1996.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner has already retired from service on 30.9.2004. In such view of the matter it is directed that the respondent No. 2 shall ensure that the petitioner is paid the difference of salary with effect from 18.10.1996 till the date of his retirement within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him, failing which the respondent No. 2 shall be liable for payment of 9% simple interest on the aforesaid amount.
10. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed. No order as to cost.