JUDGMENT Honble Mr. V.K. Bhatnagar, Member (A): This original application has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer- 1. That all the previous seniority lists regarding G.D.O. Grade-1 as well as G.D.O. Grade-2 which have been issued from time to time including seniority list issued on 17.5.1997 vide Annexrue A-15, A-16 and A-17 may be quashed and seta side; 2. That promotion granted to respondents No.4 to 13 vide order dated May 22, 1971 may be quashed and seta side; 3. That respondents NO.1 to 3 may be directed to treat the applicant senior to respondents No.4 to 13 and to consider him for consequential promotion to the various posts on which his juniors have been considered, with all consequential benefits like arrears of salary after taking into consideration the service rendered by the applicant in the composite state of Punjab; 4. That appropriate direction may be issued and the order of respondents No.2 and 3 dated June 9, 1975 vis-a-vis applicant and respondent No. 4 to 13 may be quashed and respondents No. 2 and 3 may further be directed to consider the claim of the applicant for appointment to H.P.H.S. Grade-1 after taking into consideration the service rendered by the applicant in the composite state or Punjab in accordance with HPHS Rules 1974; 5. That the instructions of the Central Government refereed to above mentioning the method of computing the seniority of the applicant viz-a-vis respondents No. 4 to 13 may be declared to be illegal and violative of fundamental rights of the applicant; 6. That the respondents No.1 to 3 may be directed to allow the applicant the benefit of the grade in Central Health Services w.e.f 1.11.1966, and directions to the contrary be declared to be illegal and invalid; and/or the respondents No.2 and 3 be directed to allow the applicant the benefit of revised pay scale from 1st February, 1968 or in any event, the respondents No.2 and 3 be directed to consider the case of crossing of efficiency bar in respect of the applicant at the stage of S. 375/- in the grade of Rs. 250-750/- with effect from the date when the applicant had put from the date when the applicant had put in six years service; 7. 250-750/- with effect from the date when the applicant had put from the date when the applicant had put in six years service; 7. That the respondents No. 1 to 3 may be directed to fix the pay of the applicant correctly and also to pay non-practising allowance and a writ of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents No.1 to 3 to allow the applicant the arrears of pay and allowances." 2. The facts of the case in brief, as pleaded, are that the applicant after obtaining MBBS degree joined the Punjab Civil Medical Service Class-11) in the composite State of Punjab w.e.f. July 6,1963. Thereafter on Nov. 1, 1966, on reorganisation of the composite State of Punjab the applicant was allocated to the Union territory of Himachal Pradesh as per Annexure A-2. However, respondents No. 4 to 13 had joined as Doctors in the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh much prior to the re-organisation of the composite State of Punjab and these respondents were members of the State cadre of the Doctors in the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. On September 9, 1966, the President of India in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution, framed the Central health Services (Amendment) \ Rules, 1966 (Central Health Service Rules in short). These rules came into effect w.e.f. September 9, 1966 and thereafter the Doctors who were serving in the cadre of Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh, were inducted as General duty Grade-11 in the Central Health Services under the Central Health Services (Amendment) Rules 1966 w.e.f September 9, 1966. Full benefit of past service in the Union Territory of Himachal cadre was given to the private respondents for purposes in the Union Territory of Himachal cadre was given to the private respondents for purposes of seniority and for determining conditions of their eligibility for absorption under Rule 7A of the Central Health services Rules. The applicant on the other hand, was allocated on re-organisation of the composite State of Punjab, to the Union. Territory of Himachal Pradesh w.e.f. November 1, 1966 and was subsequently inducted as General Duty Officer Grade-11 in the Central Health Services w.e.f. November 1, 1966 vide notification dated August 26, 1970 (Annexure A-6). The applicant on the other hand, was allocated on re-organisation of the composite State of Punjab, to the Union. Territory of Himachal Pradesh w.e.f. November 1, 1966 and was subsequently inducted as General Duty Officer Grade-11 in the Central Health Services w.e.f. November 1, 1966 vide notification dated August 26, 1970 (Annexure A-6). However, while inducting the applicant in Central Health services, benefit of his previous service in the composite State of Punjab had not been allowed, though such benefit had been allowed to respondents No.4 to 13 for service rendered in the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh before. their induction into the Central Health Services. Respondents No.4 to 13 thus became senior to the applicant in the Central health Scheme and were promoted to Grade-1 of that service vide Annexure A-7 dated may p 22,1974 and the applicant was ignored in that promotion, due to his lower seniority. The applicant made representation against this discrimination as per Annexure A-8 but the grievance of the applicant was not remedied. Thereafter the Himachal Pradesh health service Rules, 1974 were notified and seniority of the applicant as well as respondents No.4 to 13 was again to be fixed under these Rules. Private respondent were absorbed in H.P. Health service Grade 1 while applicant was absorbed as H.P. Health Service Grade 11 vide Annexure -A/10 dated June 9,1975 (name of respondent No. 11 does not appear in this Annexure). Provisional list of General Officers Grade-11 of Health and Family Welfare Officer Himachal Pradesh as on April 30, 1977 was circulated for inviting objections vide office memo dated May 24, 1977 and final seniority list was circulated on October 9, 1977 showing the position as on April 30, 1977. A copy of this final seniority list is placed on record as Annexure A-11. The applicant was promoted to Grade-1 of the Himachal Pradesh I Health Service on September 1, 1978 vide Annexure A-12. Another final seniority list was circulated on 15 9.1990 showing the position of Himachal Pradesh health Services Grade-1 Officer as on 30.6.1989 in which the name of the applicant appears at Sr. No.22. Again applicant made representation which was rejected vide Annexure A-14 dated 10.4.1995. The applicant also filed Civil Writ Petition and also LPA No. 11/1981 in the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. LPA was decided on September 28, 1994. No.22. Again applicant made representation which was rejected vide Annexure A-14 dated 10.4.1995. The applicant also filed Civil Writ Petition and also LPA No. 11/1981 in the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. LPA was decided on September 28, 1994. However that judgment was not correctly implemented and the applicant filed contempt petition (c) 3/1995 for non-compliance of the above referred judgment. This contempt petition as disposed of on Nov. 22, 1996 with the following observations: - "If the petitioner approaches the Administrative Tribunal, we hope that the Tribunal will dispose of the matter expeditiously as the petitioner has been in this court fighting for his rights since 1973. It is a matter which requires immediate disposal and the Tribunal will certainly keep that in mind, if the petitioner approaches the Administrative Tribunal for appropriate relief." 3. The present original application has been fifed after the decision of the Contempt petition referred to above. 4. Private respondents had been served through publication but they did not participate in the proceedings and as such they were proceeded exparte. 5. Respondents No.1 to 3 have opposed this original application on the ground that the applicant had been inducted into the Central Health Services Grade-11 w.e.f. 1.11.1966 under Rule 8A whereas private respondents had been inducted w.e.f. September 9, 1966 under Rule 7A and according to office memorandum No.F.5(11)-1/67 /CHSI dated July 22, 1967 issued by Government of India Ministry of Health & Family Planning, Department of health, Officers appointed to the Grade of Central Health Services under Rules 1966 would rank senior in that grade to those who may be appointed under Rule 8 of Central Health service, 1963. No reference has however been made in this letter with regard to officers who had been appointed under Rule 8A of these Rules. The case of the respondents is that private respondents had been appointed under Rule 7A referred to above and as such they were to rank en block senior to the applicant (though he was appointed under Rule 8A and not under rule 8). It has further been submitted by the respondents that the Honble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated November 2, 1981, had disposed of the Civil appeal No. 2104/1980 titled as Dr. S.P. Kapoor versus State of H.P. and others alonwith Civil Appeal No. 2384/80 titled as Dr. Jiwan Lal versus State of H.P. and others. It has further been submitted by the respondents that the Honble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated November 2, 1981, had disposed of the Civil appeal No. 2104/1980 titled as Dr. S.P. Kapoor versus State of H.P. and others alonwith Civil Appeal No. 2384/80 titled as Dr. Jiwan Lal versus State of H.P. and others. In civil appeal No. 2104/80, it was decided that inter se seniority of the parties had to be determined in accordance with the rule 10(a) (iii) of the H.P. Health Services Rules to Dr. R.M. Bali .In Civil Appeal No. 2384/80 it was decided that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC in short) for the posts of Deputy Director and Director of Health services be held afresh after reftxing of seniority as aforesaid under Rules. In January 1974 a new cadre of Himachal Pradesh health Service was constituted under Himachal Pradesh Health Service Rule 1974 notified on 19.. 1.1974. Under these rubs, Doctors serving in the Central Health Scheme in Himachal Pradesh, were given option for joining the Himachal Pradesh Health Service Cadre. Those not opting for this newly constituted service, were to continue to hold the post to which they were appointed on regular basis. The Central Health Service Cadre. Those not opting for this newly constituted service, were to continue to hold the post to which they were appointed on regular basis The central health Services Doctors who opted for H.P. Health Service were appointed in the identical category in HP Health Service to which they had been appointed prior to the commencement of those Rules of inter-se seniority of doctors so appointed on indicial constitution of the service, was to be governed under the provision, of Rule 10 of H.P. Health services Rules, 1974. Dr. Hardev Singh, being Grade-11 in Central health Services prior to his option for H.P. Health Services, was accordingly appointed to the category of H.P. health Service Grade-11 and his seniority was fixed in accordance with the provision of the rule 10(a)(i) of H.P. Health Services Rules, 1974. The above referred Central Health Services GDO-Grade-11 Doctors who were promoted as GDO-1 in the year 1971, were appointed to the corresponding category of H.P. Health Service Grade-1 on constitution of H.P. Health Services Cadre. In 1978, 35 GDO Grade-11 including Dr. Hardev Singh were promoted as GDO Grade-1 vide order No. HFW-B(9)7/77 dated 1.9.1978. The above referred Central Health Services GDO-Grade-11 Doctors who were promoted as GDO-1 in the year 1971, were appointed to the corresponding category of H.P. Health Service Grade-1 on constitution of H.P. Health Services Cadre. In 1978, 35 GDO Grade-11 including Dr. Hardev Singh were promoted as GDO Grade-1 vide order No. HFW-B(9)7/77 dated 1.9.1978. The final seniority list of GDO Grade-1 has been notified on 15.9.90 with reference to the judgment of Civil Appeal No. 2104/80 and the relevant provision of H.P. Health Services rule 1974. Thus claim of Dr. Hardev Singh for seniority over the Doctors who had already been promoted as GDO Grade 1 in the year 1971 was examined and it was found that no interference was warranted in the existing seniority list of H.P. Health /services Grade-1 officers. It has further been submitted that applicants contention that he should be given seniority in accordance with Rule 10(a) (i) of H.P. Health Services Rule 1974 with retrospective effect i.e. even from the period when Central health Services Rules were prevalent, and be given seniority over those doctors who had already been promoted as GDOI in the year 1971 under the relevant provisions of the Central health Service Rules, is not tenable. That private respondents had been appointed to identical category of H.P. Health Service Grade-1 in the year 1974 under the H.P. Health Service Rules 1974 while applicant was only as GDO 11 immediately prior to promulgation of H.P. Health Service Rules, 1974 and as such has rightly been absorbed as GDO Grade 11 in the H.P. Medical Service. It has further been submitted that this matter was considered with reference to the judgment of Honble Supreme Court referred to earlier and the applicability of the relevant provisions of the H.P. Health Services Rule and it was found that no change in the existing seniority list of H.P. Health Services Grade-1 was required to be made and the applicant had been informed accordingly. On this basis it has been pleaded that this original application may be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel forth parties have been heard and pleadings have been perused. 7. As regards the facts of the case, there is no dispute between two parties. On this basis it has been pleaded that this original application may be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel forth parties have been heard and pleadings have been perused. 7. As regards the facts of the case, there is no dispute between two parties. The only point which needs consideration and on which the matter hinges is as to how the seniority of the Doctors who had been inducted into the Central Health Scheme in September 1966 and the applicant who had come to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh on re-organisation of the composite State of Punjab and was inducted to the Central Health Scheme w.e.f. 1.11.1966 has to be fixed in the H.P. Health Service Cadre. The learned counsel for the applicant in this connection has referred to the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Dr. S.P. Kapoor versus Dr. Jiwan lal reported in AIR 1981 S.C. 2181. Respondents have also referred to this decision in their reply. However, after going through the judgment for reasons recorded herein under, it is observed that respondents have not understood the judgment of the Honble Apex Court correctly. In this regard following observations of the Honble Apex Court are relevant for consideration, and particularly so, because the case of the applicant is exactly identical to the one decided by the Honble Apex Court. The Honble Apex Court in paras 17, 18, 19, 20 and 30 of this judgment has observed as under- "17. Mr. Pande, the then joint Secretary, Home Affairs, Government of India had stated in his D.O. Letter No. 22/5/67-SR (S) dated 14.2.1967 addressed to the Chief Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Government (Union Territory), that the Central Government Territory), informed the Chief Secretary by letter dated 17.11.1966 that the allocation of the Government Servant among the State of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh, which had already been made provisionally under Section 82 (b) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, are to be finalized by the end of February, 1967. He had requested the Chief Secretary for action for integration of the service being initiated soon after the finalisation of the allocation and had stated that it involves two steeps, namely (i) determination of the equivalent posts and (2) determination of the relative seniority of persons holding equivalent posts but drawn from different integrating units. He had requested the Chief Secretary for action for integration of the service being initiated soon after the finalisation of the allocation and had stated that it involves two steeps, namely (i) determination of the equivalent posts and (2) determination of the relative seniority of persons holding equivalent posts but drawn from different integrating units. It is also stated in that letter that while determining the relative seniority as mentioned above, it may also be borne in mind that inter se seniority of officers drawn from the same Integrated unit should, as for as possible, be maintained. He had further stated in that letter that as the Chief Secretary is aware that section 82(4) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act casts responsibility on the Central Government for ensuring fair and equitable treatment to all the officers affected by the provisions of that Act. 18. the Ministry of Health and Family Planning (Department of Health), Government of India wrote, the letter dated 9..7.1971 to the Secretary to the Government, Medical and Health Department, Himachal Pradesh regarding fixing of seniority of the Medical officers of the Punjab Government absorbed in the Central Health Service in Himachal Pradesh as in the case of Dr. S.P. Kapoor. Unfortunately, the learned Judges of the High Court have not referred to his letter, which is strongly relied upon by Mr. Mehta, in their judgment Mr. Tarkunde submitted that this letter was not riled upon before the High Court. That letter cannot be ignored. It is stated in that letter thus: "The central health Service was constituted with effect from 9.9.1996 and the seniority of the medical Officers appointed to this service with effect form that date, has been determined in accordance with the principles laid down in this Ministrys O.M. N.5(11)1/67 CHSI dated 22..7.1967. In accordance with Sub-para 1 of this memorandum, officers appointed to a grade of the Central Health Service under Rule 7A of Central Health service Rules, 1963 as amended by the Central Health Service (Amendment) Rules 1966, will rank en bloc senior in that grade to those who may be appointed to that grade under Rule 8A of the Central Health Service Rules, 1963. The Officers of the Punjab Government were appointed to the Central Health service with effect from 1.11.1966 under Rule 8A of the Central Health Service Rule 1963. The Officers of the Punjab Government were appointed to the Central Health service with effect from 1.11.1966 under Rule 8A of the Central Health Service Rule 1963. As these Officers have come into the Central Health Service only after the initial constitution of that service was over, in accordance with the principles laid down for the Central Health Service, it is not permissible to assign them seniority in the Central health service over the officers appointed to the Central health Service at the initial constitution of the service. However, as the Government of Himachal Pradesh have proposed to form their own Health Service and the Medical Officers who are to opt from the Central health Service are to be included in that service, these officers may be ached to exercise the option first Incase they choose to remain as members of the central Health Service, their seniority will be ranked only at the maintenance stage of the Central Health Service and they cannot get seniority in the Central Health Service on the basis of their prior service under the Punjab Government. Those officers who option join the proposed Himachal Pradesh Health Service may, however, be given the benefit of their past continuous service while fixing their seniority in the Himachal Pradesh Health Service At the time of formation of that service these persons can be considered for inclusion in the initial constitution of that service and their seniority fixed Dearing in mind the principles mentioned in Shri A.D. Pandes D.O. Letter No. 22/5/67-SR(S) dated 14th February, 1967." 19. We think that this stand of the Central Government in regard to seniority of officers who came into the Central Health Service at the initial constitution of that Service vis-3-vis those who came into that service after initial constitution of that service is correct and the only stand that could be reasonably taken in the circumstances of the case. It would not be proper for anyone who came into that service after it had been constituted, to ask for seniority over those who were in that service on the date of its initial constitution on the basis of their earlier appointment before they came into the Central health service after its initial constitution. 20. It would not be proper for anyone who came into that service after it had been constituted, to ask for seniority over those who were in that service on the date of its initial constitution on the basis of their earlier appointment before they came into the Central health service after its initial constitution. 20. Before the Rules were framed there was a meeting of officials on 24.1.1972 to consider the question as to how seniority of officers who were already in the Central Health Service, having been appointed to that Service under Rule 7A of the Central Health Service Rules at the initial constitution of that service and of officers of the erstwhile Punjab Government who were appointed in the Central Health Service with effect from 1.11.1966 should be fixed. The minutes of that meeting are found at pages 285 to 287 of the paper book relating to CA No. 2104 of 1980. It is seen from those minutes that in that meeting Mr. T.V. Menon of the Ministry of Law, Central Government, evidently on the basis of the aforesaid letter dated 9.7.1971 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Health and Family Planning Addressed to secretary to Government, Himachal Pradesh, Stated that: "As the Government of Himachal Pradesh proposes to form a separate Himachal Pradesh Health Service, it is well within the right of the Himachal Pradesh Government to frame rules and Regulations to govern the service conditions of officers who might be appointed to that service including their seniority. The only safeguard that should be taken is that these rules and principles of seniority should be circulated among all the officers and their option obtained in writing either to join the Himachal Pradesh health service or to remain in the Central health Service. The Government of Himachal Pradesh need not be bound by the Rules and Regulations governing the Central Health Service in respect of the provisions that might be made in the Himachal Pradesh Health Service. The Government of Himachal Pradesh may lay down any principles that may be acceptable to the officers concerned keeping in view the principles of equity and justice." 30....... The Government of Himachal Pradesh may lay down any principles that may be acceptable to the officers concerned keeping in view the principles of equity and justice." 30....... In these circumstances were are of the opinion that the learned Judge of the High Court have erred in holding that the inter se seniority has to be determined only on the basis of the late of induction into the Central Service and not with reference to R. 10 (a) (3) (iii) of the Rules which had, however, been noticed by the learned Judges without a correct appreciation of its impact on what the Government of Himachal Pradesh should do in the matter of fixing the relative seniority of the officer drawn from the integrating States. We are of the opinion that inter se seniority has to be determined only in accordance with Rule 10 (a) (iii) of the Rules and that Dr. S.P. Kapoor would be senior to Dr. R.M. Bali, who in turn would rank senior to Dr. Jiwan Lal. 8. On the basis of the above observations of the Honble Apex Court \two points are very clear. Firstly, so far as the Central Health Scheme is concerned all those Doctors who had been inducted into the Central Health Scheme on September 9, 1966 vide Annexures A-4 and A-5 prior to the applicant who was inducted on Nov. 1,1966, would rank senior to the applicant in the Central health Scheme. Secondly, as regards the seniority of the Doctors between these two categories of doctors under the Himachal Pradesh Health services rules is concerned Rule 10 of the H.P. Health Services Rules, 1974 has to be invoked. In the judgment before the Honble Apex Court, Rule, 10(3)(a) of the H.P. Health Service Rule 1974 was the relevant rule because in that case DR. R.M. Bali and Dr. S.P. Kapoor both were in the specialist cadre while in the present case Rule 10(a)(i) has to be in evoked which deals with fixation of seniority of General Duty Officers. At this stage reference may be made to the observations of the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in their judgment dated September 28, 1994 in LPA No. 1’1 of 1981 filed by Dr. Hardev Singh. These observations are as under- "The question involved in the appeal is the seniority of the appellant visa avis respondents 4 to 16. At this stage reference may be made to the observations of the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in their judgment dated September 28, 1994 in LPA No. 1’1 of 1981 filed by Dr. Hardev Singh. These observations are as under- "The question involved in the appeal is the seniority of the appellant visa avis respondents 4 to 16. The learned Single Judge relying on earlier Division Bench decision of this court in Dr. Jiwan Lal and another v. State of H.P. and others ILR 1980 HP 413), has passed the impugned judgment and decree. The decision of this Court in Jiwan Lals case was taken to Supreme Court and was set aside. The Supreme Court judgment is reported in ILR 1982 HP 1. The Supreme Court has given detailed guidelines in the said judgment for fixing the seniority of employees like the appellant and the respondents. Both the parties agree that the decision of the Supreme Court, as aforesaid, would be decisive of the controversy in the instant appeal. It is also agreed that the respondent-State Government would note be required to fix the seniority of the appellant vis-a-vis the respondents and others in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court." 9. It is not denied by the leaned Addl. Advocate General that private respondents No.4 to 13 and the applicant a had been recruited through commission as defined under the H.P. Health Service Rules 1974 had been inducted into the Central Health Scheme in the year, 1966. Respondents No. 4 to 13 had been inducted into the Central Health Service on September 9, 1966 while applicant had been inducted to that service w.e.f. Nov. 1.1966 in Grde-11 of that service. As observed buy the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. S.P. Kapoor versus Dr. Jiwan Lal, reported in AIR 1981 S.C. 2181, the applicant cannot claim seniority over the private respondents in the Central Health Scheme on account of the fact that his date of induction in the Central Health Scheme is later than that of private respondents. As observed buy the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. S.P. Kapoor versus Dr. Jiwan Lal, reported in AIR 1981 S.C. 2181, the applicant cannot claim seniority over the private respondents in the Central Health Scheme on account of the fact that his date of induction in the Central Health Scheme is later than that of private respondents. However, as regards the seniority in the H.P. Health Service, the Honble Apex Court has held that before H.P. Health Service Rules had been framed a meeting of officers had taken place on 24.1.1972 to consider the question as to how seniority of officers who were already in the Central Health Services, having been appointed to that service under Rule 7A of the Central Health Service Rules at the initial constitution of that service and officers of erstwhile Punjab government who were appointed in the Central Health Service w.e.f. 1.11.1966 should be fixed. As regards the Seniority between Doctor S.P. Kapoor and Dr. Jiwan Lal the Honble Apex Court held that letter dated July 9, 1971 written by the Ministry of Health and Family Planning, Department of Health, Government of India, to the Secretary, Medical and Health Department of Himachal Pradesh regarding fixing of seniority of the Medical Officers of the Punjab Government absorbed in Central Health Scheme in Himachal Pradesh was quite relevant. This letter as reproduced in this judgment states that as the government of HP. proposed to form their own Health Service, the Medical officers who were to opt for Central Health Service be asked to exercise option first. In case they exercise such an option to join proposed to form their own health Service he Medical Officers who were to opt for Central Health Service be asked to exercise option first. In case they exercise such an option to join proposed HP. Health service, they would be give the benefit of their past continuous service while fixing their seniority in the H.P. Health Service. At the time of formation of that service these persons could be considered for inclusion in the initial constitution of that service and their seniority fixed bearing in mind the principles mentioned in Mr. A.D. Pandes D.O. letter No. 22/5/67-SR (S) dated July 4, 1967. This view was approved by the Honble Apex Court in para 30 of this judgment. 10. A.D. Pandes D.O. letter No. 22/5/67-SR (S) dated July 4, 1967. This view was approved by the Honble Apex Court in para 30 of this judgment. 10. In para 17 of this judgment (reproduced earlier) the Honble Apex Court referred to the contents of the letter written by Mr. A.D. Pande. It was also mentioned in this letter that section 82(4) of Punjab Re-organisation Act casts a responsibility on the Central Government for ensuring fair and equitable treatment to all the officers affected by the provisions of the Punjab Re-organisation Act. 11. In the present case the officers who had been allocated to the union Territory of H.P. from the composite State of Punjab and the officers already working in the Union Territory of H.P. were affected by the Punjab Re-organisation Act and it was rightly observed that fair treatment had to be given to both the categories. However, while considering induction of the Doctors already working in Union Territory of H.P. into Central Health Service, their previous service in the H.P. was taken into account at the time of induction in GDO-11 but the past service of the applicant rendered in Punjab was not so counted. As already held by the Honble Apex Court, on account of subsequent induction into Central Health Scheme the applicant could not claim higher seniority vis-a-vis private respondents in the Central Health Scheme. However, as regards absorption in the H.P. Health Service, the seniority has to fee fixed under Rule 10 of the H.P. Health Service Rules 1974. The provisions of Rule 10 (a) areas follows:- "10. Fixation of seniority-(s) The inter-se-seniority of departmental candidates absorbed under rule 7 and 8 shall be determined as follows:- (i) Himachal Pradesh health service Grade 11- From the date of regular appointment of the officer in a gazetted rank after having been duly selected by eh Union Public Service Commission, Punjab Public Service Commission and Himachal Pradesh Public Service commission and or by a regular Departmental promotion Committee. (ii) Himachal Pradesh Health Service Grade 1- From the date of regular appointment having been duly selected by the Union Public Service Commission, Punjab Public Service Commission and Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and or by a regular Departmental promotion Committee in the following grades:- P.C. M.S. 1 G.D.O. Gr.1 12. (ii) Himachal Pradesh Health Service Grade 1- From the date of regular appointment having been duly selected by the Union Public Service Commission, Punjab Public Service Commission and Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and or by a regular Departmental promotion Committee in the following grades:- P.C. M.S. 1 G.D.O. Gr.1 12. While fixing seniority of the applicant and respondents under theses Rules, respondents have taken the plea that the applicant would be inducted to HP. Health Service Grade-11 because he was serving in the Central health Scheme as Grade-11 officers when these rules came into operation whereas private respondents had been inducted in H.P. Health Service Grade-1 because at the relevant time they were working in the Grade-1 of the Central Health Service. While doing so, the provision of sub Clause (i) of Rule 10(a), had however, been ignored. For induction of the applicant in H.P. Health Service Grade-11, "date irregular appointment of the applicant in the gazetted rank after his selection by the Punjab Public Service Commission had to be taken into account". His date of induction in the Central Health Scheme was not relevant for this purpose. Therefore, the seniority of the applicant in the H.P. Health Service Grde-11 had to be fixed after taking into account the date of this regular appointment in the gazetted rank after his selection by Punjab Service Commission which according to the pleadings is July 6, 1963. On that basis the applicant has to be accorded his seniority as Grade-11 officers of the H.P. Health Service w.e.f. 6.7.1963 and after fixing his seniority in Grade 11 of H.P. Health Service on this basis, his promotion to Grade-1 has to be considered. This would be strictly in accordance with the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court as given in the case of Dr. Jiwan Lal and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh (AIR 1981 SC 2181) as well as the statutory provisions of sub clause (i) of Rule 10 (a) of the H.P. Health Service Rules 1974. As to why respondents 1 to 3 have deviated from this course of action despite their agreement/undertaking to this effect before the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh Indicated/given, during the course of hearing of LPA No. 11 of 1981 is not understandable. As to why respondents 1 to 3 have deviated from this course of action despite their agreement/undertaking to this effect before the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh Indicated/given, during the course of hearing of LPA No. 11 of 1981 is not understandable. As mentioned earlier, the Honble Apex Court in para 30 of their judgment (AIR 1981 SC 2181) had clearly held that the view that inter se seniority of officers drawn from the integrated States had to be determined only on the basis of the date of induction into the Central Health service and not with reference to Rule 10 (a) (3) (iii) of the Rules, was erroneous. As such the stand taken by the respondents 1 to 3 in the matter is obviously wrong. 13. No other point has been stressed. 14. As a result of above this discussion this original application is allowed to the extent that respondents 1 to 3 will first fix the seniority of the applicant under Rule 10 a (i) of the H.P. Health Service Rules 1974 in H.P. Health Service Grade 11 by counting the regular appointment of the applicant \n a gazetted rank after his selection by the Punjab service Commission and thereafter will consider the applicant for promotion to Grade 1 of that service in accordance with his seniority in Grade 11 of that service. Annexures-A/15, A/16 and A/17 are quashed and set aside. The applicant will be entitled to all the consequential benefits of promotions and scales of pay which may become due to him from time to time as a result of this action. Supernumerary posts if any, will be created to give effect to this judgment for this purpose. Respondents are directed to implement this judgment within a period of three months from today. -