JUDGMENT H. S. Thakur, J.—The dispute involved in this writ petition dates back to the year 1963. The writ petition itself was filed during the year 1968. The controversy, between the parties, who are employees of Himachal Pradesh Government, is regarding their inter se seniority and promotion. After hard contest, the writ petition was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on September 15, 1975. The relevant operative portion of the judgment is reproduced as under :— "The result, therefore, is that the petition in so far as Servshri D. C. Premi (respondent No. 8), Bhagat Ram (respondent No. 17) and Ram Prakash (respondent No. 22) are concerned, fails, but the petitioner succeeds in respect of the other respondents and the Annexures PD, PK, PJ, PI and PL are hereby quashed and it is ordered that the seniority list shall be re-drawn in the light of the above observations and the petitioner shall be considered for promotion from the earlier date when his juniors were promoted/ 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, passed by this Court, the respondents Nos. 4, 5, 7, 9 to 16, 18, 19 and 21 filed a review petition in this Court, which was numbered as Civil Review Petition No. 15 of 1975. The Division Bench reconsidered the whole matter and re-called the earlier judgment and order, dated September 27, 1976. The relevant operative portion of the order is also reproduced as under :— "We are satisfied that the respondents, who have applied for a review of our judgment, have made out a case for the grant of review. In the circumstances, we recall our judgment and order, dated September 15,1975 so far as it affects the respondents who have applied for review, and restore the writ petition to its original number and direct it to be listed afresh for hearing in regard to the relief prayed for by the petitioner against those respondents." 3. A perusal of the order, passed by the Division Bench, while allowing the review petition, indicates that certain considerations have weighed with the Court whereby the correctness of the judgment and order passed on September 15, 1975 has been doubted. It is for this reason that the writ petition has again come up for hearing before us. 4. A perusal of the order, passed by the Division Bench, while allowing the review petition, indicates that certain considerations have weighed with the Court whereby the correctness of the judgment and order passed on September 15, 1975 has been doubted. It is for this reason that the writ petition has again come up for hearing before us. 4. Before the points that have been re-considered by the Division Bench allowing the review petition, are discussed it is desirable to refer to the background and circumstances under which the controversy arose between the parties. It may be pointed out that in the constitutional set up of Himachal Pradesh, an Act known as "The Territorial Councils Act, 1956 (Act No. 103 of 1956)" (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1956) was passed by the Parliament. The Act came into force on the 1st day of January, 1957. With the enforcement of the Act of 1956 a diarchical form of administration came into being in Himachal Pradesh, besides other Union territories. By virtue of section 28 of the Act of 1956 certain matters came under the control and administration of the Territorial Council. Matters, such as, Education and Medical Departments up to particular level and other matters were transferred to the control and administration of the Territorial Council. The remaining matters were to be administered by an Administrator on behalf of the Central Government. 5. After the formation of the Territorial Council in Himachal Pradesh, officers and staff, in order to control and administer the subjects transferred to it were to be appointed, as provided under section 32 of the Act of 1956. In this process the concerned staff of the Territorial Council, for the purpose of deciding this matter, consisted of the following three categories as indicated in the review order : — "(1) The staff of the Education and Medical Departments transferred, with those Departments, from the Himachal Pradesh Administration to the Territorial Council. (2) Officials borne on the strength of the Himachal Pradesh Administration Cadre but placed on deputation with the Territorial Council. (3) Officials directly recruited to the Territorial Council." 6. The Parliament passed another Act known as "The Government of Union Territories Act, 1963" (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1963) which came into force on July 1, 1963. (2) Officials borne on the strength of the Himachal Pradesh Administration Cadre but placed on deputation with the Territorial Council. (3) Officials directly recruited to the Territorial Council." 6. The Parliament passed another Act known as "The Government of Union Territories Act, 1963" (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1963) which came into force on July 1, 1963. By the enforcement of the said Act, the Territorial Council stood abolished and the system of the diarchical form also came to an end. The Himachal Pradesh territory was thereafter to be administered in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1963. Consequently, the employees of the Territorial Council were to go back to the Administration as envisaged under the Act of 1963. It is at this stage that the dispute arose between the parties regarding their seniority and promotion as they became the employees of the administration. We have to resolve the dispute again between the parties, in view of the observations made by the Division Bench while allowing the review petition. 7. It may be pointed out at the very outset that the facts of the case, the relevant Annexures and other material on record have been thoroughly considered and discussed at length in the judgment and order, dated September 15, 1975 as also in the order re-calling the judgment allowing the review petition for the purpose of appreciating the detailed facts, the said judgment can be perused and it is not necessary for us to detail at length the said facts and circumstances, over again. It may be pointed out that this Court while allowing the review petition has observed that for the sake of convenience reference to the parties in the order of review shall be made in the same manner in which they have been referred to in the judgment of which the review was sought and that Shri Sirkek will be referred to as "the petitioner" and Shri O. P. Gupta and other private respondents in the writ petition being referred to as "the respondents" according to their serial number in the writ petition. Similarly, in our judgment we shall refer to the parties in the same manner. 8. While allowing the review petition certain points doubting the correctness of the judgment and order passed on September 15, 1975 have been raised. Similarly, in our judgment we shall refer to the parties in the same manner. 8. While allowing the review petition certain points doubting the correctness of the judgment and order passed on September 15, 1975 have been raised. It is not necessary to precisely detail those points as the essence of the same centres around the interpretation of sub-section (2) of section 58 of the Act of 1963. Those points would, however, be discussed at the relevant place in this judgment later on. 9. In order to determine those points, it may be desirable to re-produce the relevant provisions of the Act of 1956 and the Act 4of 1963. Section 32 of the Act of 1956 may be reproduced as under:— "32. (1) For every Territorial Council there shall be a Chief Executive Officer who shall be appointed by the Administrator. (2) If a resolution for removal of the Chief Executive Officer is passed at a meeting of the Territorial Council by a majority of not Jess than two-thirds of the total membership of the Council, the Administrator shall remove him forthwith. (3) The appointment of the principal officers in charge of engineering health services and education shall be made by the Council with the approval of the Administrator. (4) The Council shall, in addition, appoint such staff as may be necessary for the proper and efficient execution of its duties and make regulations for their conditions of service. (5) The power of appointing officers and staff (whether temporary or permanent) shall be exercised in accordance with the rules framed for the purpose : Provided that no person shall be appointed to a post the minimum monthly salary (exclusive of allowances) for which is Rs. 300 per mensem or more except after consultation with the Union Public Service Commission in accordance with the rules. (6) The conditions of service applicable to a person immediately before his appointment to a post under a Territorial Council shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government. (7) Every officer or member of staff of a Territorial Council shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code." Similarly the relevant provision of section 58 of the Act of 1963 is reproduced as under :— "58. Repeal and savings.—(1) .............................................. (7) Every officer or member of staff of a Territorial Council shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code." Similarly the relevant provision of section 58 of the Act of 1963 is reproduced as under :— "58. Repeal and savings.—(1) .............................................. (2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Territorial Councils Act, 1956— (a) every officer and every employee of the Territorial Council of a Union Territory serving under the Council immediately before such repeal shall become an officer or other employee of Government and shall be employed in connection with the administration of the Union Territory with such designation as the Administrator may determine and shall hold office by the same tenure and at the same remuneration and on the same terms and conditions of service as he would have but for such repeal hold the same and shall continue to do so unless such tenure, remuneration and terms and conditions are duly altered by the Administrator : Provided that— (i) the tenure, remuneration and terms and conditions of service of any such officer or other employee shall not be altered to his disadvantage without the previous sanction of the Central Government; (ii) any service rendered by any such officer or other employee before such repeal shall be deemed to be service rendered in connection with the administration of the Union Territory ; 10. As discussed earlier above, after the enforcement of the Act of 1963 every officer and every employee of the Territorial Council was to become an officer or other employee of Government, and had to be employed in connection with the Administration of the Union Territory. The categories of the concerned employees of the Territorial Council have already been detailed earlier above. We shall discuss the position of the employees of each category now in seriatum. 11. The first category of the employees is the staff of the Education and Medical Departments transferred, with those Departments, from the Himachal Pradesh Administration to the Territorial Council. So far as the staff of this category is concerned, the staff of such departments was transferred along with those departments from the Himachal Pradesh Administration to the Territorial Council. There is no dispute that these departments were transferred along with the posts included in those departments in the Himachal Pradesh Administration. Accordingly, those posts became the posts in the Territorial Council. There is no dispute that these departments were transferred along with the posts included in those departments in the Himachal Pradesh Administration. Accordingly, those posts became the posts in the Territorial Council. After the departments along with the posts were transferred to the Territorial Council there were no posts left in the Administration any longer, in which the staff transferred with the departments could be said to enjoy any lien. There is sufficient material on record to conclusively infer that the employees of the Medical and Education Departments who were transferred with their departments to the Territorial Council were permanently transferred. If any of the employees of the said departments has been shown as retaining a lien in the Himachal Pradesh Administration it was a misconception of his true legal status and of the legal effect of the transfer of the departments themselves. In this context reference may be made to letter, dated February 14, 1968 in which the Government of India advised the Himachal Pradesh Administration that the staff of certain departments should be transferred to the Territorial Council without retaining any lien under the Administration. In case any control like sanctioning of leave, initiation of disciplinary proceedings, etc., if any, was retained in respect of such employees the same was a misconception. The legal effect of section 58 of the Act of 1963 was that all such employees became the employees of the Territorial Council and were entitled to the protection given under the said provision. 12. Now we discuss the second category of the staff of the Territorial Council described as "officials borne on the strength of the Himachal Pradesh Administration Cadre but placed on deputation with the Territorial Council". In respect of such employees certain points for consideration have been raised in the other allowing the review petition. According to us, those considerations are not material. In respect of such employees certain points for consideration have been raised in the other allowing the review petition. According to us, those considerations are not material. It has rightly been observed in the judgment, dated September 15, 1975 that in order that such employees could become the employees of the Territorial Council, there should have been a tripartite agreement between the parties, i. e., the Himachal Pradesh Administration, the Territorial Council and such employees, to the effect that the Administration agreed to sever all connections with such employees so that the Territorial Council could be the real employer of such employees, the Territorial Council and the employees further agreed to create a relationship of employer and employees for all intents and purposes. There is sufficient material on record to show that such employees were holding liens in the Administration and as and when their turn came they were considered for promotion and some of them were also given such promotion. The Administration never agreed to their lien being terminated. In case such employees, so desired, they could resign their posts against which their lien was maintained and could be appointed directly by the Territorial Council. At any rate, till the time the Act of 1963 was enacted, it could not be definitely said as to what would be the terms of employment of such employees. The provisions of sub-section (2) of Sec. 58 of the Act have to be interpreted in a manner that the impact of sub-sec. (6) of Sec. 32 of the Act of 1956 is not defeated. Under this provision of the Act of 1956 the conditions of service of such an employee could also not be varied to his disadvantage. A simple question which falls for determination while interpreting sub section (2) of section 58 of the Act of 1963 is whether such employees became the employees of the Territorial Council. According to us, they did not become the employees of the Territorial Council, even on the basis of the considerations pointed out by the Court while allowing the review petition. Such employees for all intents and purposes have to be considered on foreign service or on deputation with the Territorial Council and cannot be termed as the employees of the Territorial Council so as to get the benefit of sub-section (2) of section 53 of the Act of 1963. Such employees for all intents and purposes have to be considered on foreign service or on deputation with the Territorial Council and cannot be termed as the employees of the Territorial Council so as to get the benefit of sub-section (2) of section 53 of the Act of 1963. As such, they are to be treated as the employees of the Administration and on their re-transfer to the Administration they are governed in the matter of their employment like seniority and promotion on that basis. 13. Coming to the third category of the staff of the Territorial Council, i. e., the officials directly recruited to the Territorial Council, there does not arise any difficulty so far as the question of giving them the benefit of subjection (2) of section 58 of the Act of 1963 is concerned. They are the employees of the Territorial Council and are fully entitled to the protection of the aforesaid provision. 14. We have considered all the points, raised by the learned counsel for the parties and after considering the entire material we have come to the aforesaid conclusion. 15. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that the order and judgment of this Court, dated September 15, 1975 is modified to the aforesaid extent. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the said extent only. It is, therefore, ordered that the seniority list shall be re-drawn in the light of the above observations and the petitioner shall be considered for promotion from the date when his juniors, according to the re-drawn seniority list, were promoted. 16. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.