JUDGMENT C.K. Thakker, CJ. (Oral) :- This petition is filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh for an appropriate order quashing and setting aside order dated 6.1.1999 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal granting j interim relief in favour of respondent No. 1 - petitioner before the Tribunal in OA { No.59 of 1999 (titled Dalip Singh Chauhan v. State of H.P. & Ors. 2. Since the dispute relating to seniority of Assistant Engineers in Public Works Department is pending before the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, we would confine ourselves to the limited prayer made in this petition by the State Government and the grievances voiced by it. 3. It appears that the final seniority list of Assistant Engineers (c) was circulated by the Department on August 20,1997. Even prior to that, a tentative as well as final seniority list was published. So far as the final seniority list of August 20, 1997 is concerned, it is an admitted fact that certain petitions were filed before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. Initially on October 17, 1997, OA No. 1940 of 1997 was instituted by the petitioner. Interim relief was also prayed. Considering the facts and circumstances, however, a Division Bench consisting of the Chairman as well as a Member of the Tribunal did not grant blanket stay restraining the respondent authorities from making promotion but allowed the Department to effect promotion subject to the final outcome of the matter. 4. The relevant part of the order reads thus: From the above said pleadings the case of the applicants appears to be arguable, also from the perusal of the documents annexed with the application there appears to be a existing prima facie case in favour of the applicant. However, in case the blanket order staying the operation of the seniority list. Annexure !-18 dated 20.8.1997 is granted in favour of the applicant, it would tantamount to granting of the main relief, in the first instance, secondly the blanket order staying further action in relation to the promotion of either party would result in stoppage of the administrative function in case the applicants ultimately succeed in their application they can be compensated with money by directing the fixation of their seniority from the due date and payment of the arrears of salary etc. with costs. with costs. In that view of the mater, the balance of convenience is in favour of respondent No. 1 than the applicant. Considering the entire facts and circumstances for the purpose of granting the interim relief, we direct that promotion so made by respondent No. 1 shall be subject to the final decision of the main application. We make it clear that as the clear cut case of the applicants at this moment is that they have been considered to be senior to respondents 2 to 19 from the due dates of their appointment as Assistant Engineer, it would not be fair to respondent No. 1 to post the applicants under the respondents/promotes from Sr. No.2 to 19 pursuant to the above said seniority list annexure A-18 dated 20-8.19^7. The prayer in respect of the interim relief is granted to this extent. Misc. application stands disposed of in terms of above observations "(Emphasis supplied) 5. The State, in these circumstances, did not feel aggrieved and did not take further action against the order passed by the Division Bench. Thereafter, on January 6, 1999, respondent No. 1 Dalip Singh Chauhan instituted OA No.59 of 1999. It came up for admission before the vice Chairman (Single Bench). On January 6, 1999, notice was issued and interim order was passed. Said order reads thus:- "The learned counsel for the applicant has sought interim direction to the effect that no promotion of respondent No. 2 to 8 be made to the post of Executive Engineer till further orders. From the perusal of the seniority list issued on August 20, 1997 (Annexure A- 5), the applicant has been shown at Sr. Na.235 while the date of appointment as of Assistant Engineer is 11.8.1988. The respondent No. 2 was appointed on regular basis on June 15, 1996 and respondent No. 3 to 8 were promoted on regular basis on March 16, 1995 but all of them have been shown senior to the applicant. This seems to be unjust and unfair to the applicant. When this seniority list was issued, a number of representations were made as averred by the applicant in the Original Application including the applicant. It is further averred that this seniority list is under review by the Government. This seems to be unjust and unfair to the applicant. When this seniority list was issued, a number of representations were made as averred by the applicant in the Original Application including the applicant. It is further averred that this seniority list is under review by the Government. In view of it, the applicant has made a case for the interim direction and accordingly, I direct the respondents not to make promotions of respondent No. 2 to 8 to the post of Executive Engineers till further orders,” (Emphasis supplied) 6. Similar order was passed in a petition being OA No.60 of 1999 titled Anil Kumar & Anr. v. State of H.P. & Ors. (Sic) It is pertinent to note that so far as the order dated January 6,1999 in OA No.59 of 1999 (similarly OA No.60 of 1999), the learned Vice Chairman heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the Additional Advocate General. The contesting respondent 2 to 8 (in OA 59 of 1999) and respondents 2 to 6 (in OA 60 of 1999) were not present, were not heard. 7. It appears that the State was aggrieved by the above orders in view of the fact that the injunction was granted against giving promotion which adversely affected the administration and secondly that though a similar question came up before the Tribunal and a Division Bench had not granted such interim relief, a Single Bench granted stay. In October, 1997 interim relief was granted by Vice Chairman of the Tribunal sitting as a Single bench. It, therefore, attempted to get the above interim orders vacated which is clear from the facts stated in the petition and particularly steps taken from May, 1999. The relevant details as stated in the petition, read thus: Date Orders passed "24.5.99 Today the case was listed for vacation of stay. After hearing the parties it appears that the case relates to the seniority issued on August 20, 1997. The subject of dispute in all these cases is the same. Thus, we feel it desirable that the case be listed for final disposal on 25.7.1999 at SI. No.l instead of listing the same for orders along with other similar matters. The respondents are directed to produce the record of the case including the file No. PBW(l)B(2)/15/95 part regarding seniority list of the Assistant Engineers. 5.1.2000 List this case for tomorrow. Thus, we feel it desirable that the case be listed for final disposal on 25.7.1999 at SI. No.l instead of listing the same for orders along with other similar matters. The respondents are directed to produce the record of the case including the file No. PBW(l)B(2)/15/95 part regarding seniority list of the Assistant Engineers. 5.1.2000 List this case for tomorrow. 29.5.2000 At the request of learned Additional Advocate General, this case be listed on June 1, 2000. 4.9.2000 At the request of learned counsel appearing vice the original counsel, list this case on 13.9.2000. 25.9.2000 This matter has been partly heard by the D.B. As the matter is of great significance affecting entire hierachy of the Public Works Department. List this case on 28.9.2000, before the D.B. 28.9.2000 List this case after a week, as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 18.10.2000 At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, list this case in the second week of November, 2000. 12.3.2001 List this case on March 14, 2001. 14.3.2001 List this case before Division Bench on March 16, 2001. 27.3.2001 At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, list this MA along with other connected cases for final disposal on 26.4.2001. 26.4.2001 List this case on 18.5.2001 along with other tagged matters." Since nothing was done for quite long time, the State approached this Court by filing the present petition on September 3,2001. It came up for admission for the first time on October 1, 2001 and on that day notice "as to admission as well as for final hearing" was issued returnable on November 11,2001. 8. Today, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. The grievance of the State is that in matters of seniority and promotion, as per settled law, interim relief normally would not be granted by a Court/Tribunal and a direction is issued that any action taken during the pendency of the proceedings would be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings. In the instant case, there was an additional factor also, namely, that in OA No. 1940 of 1997, the same final seniority list of Assistant Engineers dated August 20, 1997, was challenged. The matter came up before the Division Bench of the Tribunal and blanket interim relief against giving of promotions was refused by the Tribunal. In the instant case, there was an additional factor also, namely, that in OA No. 1940 of 1997, the same final seniority list of Assistant Engineers dated August 20, 1997, was challenged. The matter came up before the Division Bench of the Tribunal and blanket interim relief against giving of promotions was refused by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, it was not open to the Single Bench of the Tribunal to grant interim relief restraining the respondent authorities from giving promotions. The only order which could have been passed by the Tribunal in the circumstances, as submitted by the learned counsel, would be that any action taken during the pendency of applications would be subject to final outcome of the petitions. It was also submitted that due to blanket stay order, the administration has suffered. 10. Mr. Chirag Bhanu Singh; learned counsel for respondent No. 1 -contesting respondent on the other hand, supported the order passed by the Tribunal. He submitted that the order was passed after hearing the learned Addl. Advocate General. Moreover, the aggrieved respondents, who have been affected have not approached this Court. Even the State authorities had also taken long time in approaching this Court. Finally, it was stated that all the matters, including OA No.59 of 1999 and OA No.60 of 1999 have been heard by the Tribunal and the judgment is reserved. He also stated that OA No. 1940 of 1997 was also heard by the Tribunal and judgment was reserved. According to the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, hence the petition has become infructuous and deserves to be dismissed. 11. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned counsel for proforma respondents, supported the arguments advanced on behalf of the State authorities. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, blanket interim relief granted by the Tribunal deserves to be vacated. 13. Firstly, it is well settled that normally while dealing with the inter se disputes between employees with regard to seniority, interim orders should not be passed as the points can be finally settled at the time of final decision in the matter. 14. In Rana Randhir Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (AIR 1989 SC 218). 13. Firstly, it is well settled that normally while dealing with the inter se disputes between employees with regard to seniority, interim orders should not be passed as the points can be finally settled at the time of final decision in the matter. 14. In Rana Randhir Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (AIR 1989 SC 218). the Supreme Court observed that inter se disputes between public servants not only affects the efficiency of the service but brings about dissension, misunderstanding, a sense of rivalry and ultimately brings indiscipline. The Court in such cases should not grant interim order and permitted the State Government to give effect to the rules. "Interim orders in such matters should not ordinarily be made as the position can always be rectified when the judgment is rendered, "(emphasis supplied) 15. In the instant case, in our opinion, the Tribunal ought to have adopted the aforesaid course and ought not to have granted blanket stay against effecting promotion causing inconvenience and adverse effect on public administration. 16. The matter can be looked at from another angle as well. It is clear from the record that the seniority list, impugned in OA No.59 of 1999 (as also in OA No.60 of 1999) was challenged in OA No. 1940 of 1997 also. Blanket interim relief against giving of promotion was not granted by the Division bench. The said order is also on record. It was passed by the Division Bench on October 17, 1997. On behalf of the State, it was stated that the impugned order is passed by the Vice Chairman, who was a Member of the Bench at the relevant time when the order dated October 17, 1997 was passed. He, therefore, ought not to have passed the impugned order as he was bound to follow the earlier order, it was in the fitness of things that he should have followed the earlier decision. We are not unmindful that as observed by the Supreme court, interim orders are not always to be treated as precedent. Ordinarily, however, if a similar question comes up for consideration, unless there are some reasons for taking a different view, it should be followed so that there may not be inconsistent orders by one and the same authority. 17. We are not unmindful that as observed by the Supreme court, interim orders are not always to be treated as precedent. Ordinarily, however, if a similar question comes up for consideration, unless there are some reasons for taking a different view, it should be followed so that there may not be inconsistent orders by one and the same authority. 17. In the facts and circumstances, in our opinion, when the same seniority list was made subject matter of one petition and limited interim relief was granted, it would have been proper if similar order would have been passed. In our opinion, therefore the order passed on January 6,1999 deserves to be vacated. 18. So far as the hearing of the petitions is concerned, though there is nothing on record as no affidavit is filed on he behalf of respondent No. 1, the learned counsel for the first respondent may be right in submitting that the hearing is over and the judgment is awaited. In view of the fact, however, that the promotions are stayed by the Tribunal which, in our opinion, is not only improper and illegal but also inconsistent with the earlier order passed by the Tribunal, is against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in several cases, including Rana Randhir Singh, referred to above, we hold that the petition has not become infructuous and the same deserves to be allowed. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal on January 6, 1999 in OA No. 59 of 1999 is hereby quashed and set aside. We may, however, clarify that any action which would be taken hereafter, would be subject to final outcome of all the petitions pending before the Tribunal. 20. We may also observe that we have not entered into merits of the matter and all observations made by us hereinabove have been made only for the purpose of deciding the present petition. As and when the matters will come up for hearing, they will be decided by the Tribunal, on merits without being inhibited by the above observations. 21. Since Mr. As and when the matters will come up for hearing, they will be decided by the Tribunal, on merits without being inhibited by the above observations. 21. Since Mr. Dalip Singh, who is the contesting respondent there (Applicant in OA No. 59 of 1999) and though wider relief is prayed regarding the order passed on January 6, 1999 which was passed in OA No.59 of 1999 and OA No.60 of 1999, which is filed by two petitioners, who have not been the party respondents, it is open to the respondent authorities to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law including the filing of an application/petition for modifying interim relief and the disposal of the petition would not come in the way of the State. 22. Mr. Sanjay Karol, learned Advocate General, instructed by Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Dy. Advocate General, prays to grant liberty to the State to move the Tribunal for passing an appropriate order in other case, which is not before us i.e. OA No.60 of 1999. Liberty granted. Ordered accordingly. 23. Though it was stated that the matters have already been heard and the judgment is awaited, it is expected that the Tribunal will decide them as expeditiously as possible. 24. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. 25. Copy dasti. -