Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 404 (HP)

RAM RATTAN v. STATE OF H. P.

2009-05-04

RAJIV SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge-The petitioners were appointed as Distributors (Class IV) in the year 1971. They were promoted as Compositors (Class III) on 6.2.1973. Respondents No. 3 to 8 were appointed between 7.2.1973 to 28.2.1973 by way of direct recruitment. The tentative seniority list of Compositors was published in the year 1974. The petitioners were shown senior to respondents No. 3 to 8. However, in the seniority list issued on 14.7.1981, they were brought below respondents No. 3 to 8. Thereafter, a tentative seniority list was issued on 17/19.5.1983 and the final seniority list was circulated on 4.5.1984. They filed representation on 15.10.1985 against the final seniority list dated 4.5.1984. The representation was rejected by the competent authority on 3.3.1986. Thereafter, it is apparent from the pleadings that as many as five tentative and final seniority lists were circulated in between 1988 to 1997. The final seniority list was published on 13.12.1999. The representation made by the petitioners against the seniority list was rejected on 28.1.2000. 2. Mr. P.P. Chauhan has strenuously argued that respondents No. 3 to 8 could not be made senior to the petitioners in all the impugned seniority lists. He further contended that the petitioners were to be assigned seniority from the initial date of appointment and not according to their confirmation. 3. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioners were required to challenge the seniority list issued on 4.6.1974 and subsequent final seniority lists within a reasonable period. He then contended that the respondents No. 3 to 8 were confirmed before the petitioners vide Annexure RA-4 dated 5.12.1978 and the petitioners were confirmed later on. He lastly contended that the seniority has been assigned to respondents No. 3 to 8 in accordance with Rule 8. 4. I have heard the parties and perused the records carefully. 5. The petitioners were though appointed as Compositors on 6.2.1973 but were confirmed after respondents No. 3 to 8. Respondents No. 3 to 8 were confirmed in the year 1978. Seniority was to be determined as per Rule 8 of “the Himachal Pradesh Printing & Stationery Department Class-III and Class-IV (Ministerial, Technical and Non-Technical) Service, Recruitment, Promotion and Certain Conditions of Service Rules, 1963”. Since the respondents No. 3 to 8 were confirmed as Compositors on 5.12.1978 with immediate effect, they were to be ranked senior to the petitioners. 6. Seniority was to be determined as per Rule 8 of “the Himachal Pradesh Printing & Stationery Department Class-III and Class-IV (Ministerial, Technical and Non-Technical) Service, Recruitment, Promotion and Certain Conditions of Service Rules, 1963”. Since the respondents No. 3 to 8 were confirmed as Compositors on 5.12.1978 with immediate effect, they were to be ranked senior to the petitioners. 6. The fact of the matter is that the petitioners had not assailed the seniority lists issued on 4.6.1974, 19.5.1983 and 4.5.1984 in the Court of law within a reasonable period. Their representation made against the seniority list dated 4.5.1984 was rejected on 3.3.1986. Thereafter also, five seniority lists have been circulated. The petitioners had not assailed them within a reasonable time. They have only assailed the seniority list on 13.12.1999 by way of present petition in the year 2001. They always ranked below respondents No. 3 to 8 in the seniority list from 1981 onwards. 7. Mr. P.P. Chauhan has argued that since no person was considered for promotion on the basis of impugned seniority list, the petition was within limitation. However, it is apparent from the reply filed by the respondents that number of promotions were effected on the basis of final seniority list issued from 1984 onwards to the posts of Computer (Composing) and Assistant Section Holder (Composing). The petitioners ought to have assailed the seniority list immediately after the accrual of cause of action on 14.7.1981 or latest by 4.5.1984. 8. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as well. No costs.