Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 873 (HP)

Vijay Chand v. F. C. -cum-Secretary

2011-03-03

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner claims seniority mainly over respondent No.35(Smt. Kaushalya Devi) who according to him was much junior to him. The case of the petitioner is that he was selected and appointed as temporary Assistant/Sub-Treasurer in the Himachal Pradesh Treasury Organization on 27.7.1971. He was promoted as District Treasurer on 23.12.1983 and joined as such on 9.1.1984. 2. The case of the petitioner is that in the seniority list of Sub Treasurers his name was at Sr. No. 5 above the respondent No.35 Kaushalya Devi whose name appeared at Sr. No. 7. He claims that he was senior to Smt. Kaushalya Devi. This list even according to the petitioner was circulated in the year 31.5.1989. 3. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner prayed that he may be permitted to be transferred to the cadre of Sr. Assistants. First prayer made by him in this regard on 8.3.1984 which was rejected on 22.3.1984 on the ground that there was no provision for transfer from one cadre to other. The petitioner made another representation on 21.5.1984 and again requested for reconsideration of his request for change of cadre and he also exercised his option for forfeiture of his seniority in the event of change of cadre. In the mean time the rules were amended and Sub Treasurers were also made eligible for promotion to the post of Assistants and thereafter the application of the petitioner was reconsidered and he was permitted to join as an Assistant vide office order dated 13.1.1986 and placed at the bottom of the cadre of Assistants. 4. It is also admitted that Smt. Kaushalya Devi was promoted as assistant as per the new recruitment and promotion rules on 4.6.1985 prior to the grant of permission to the petitioner and was consequently placed above him. 5. Seniority lists of assistants were circulated in the years 1991 and 1994 and in both the seniority lists, Smt. Kaushalya Devi was shown senior to the petitioner. The petitioner never represented against this seniority granted to Smt. Kaushalya Devi and for the first time in June, 1997 filed a representation praying that he be granted seniority over Smt. Kaushalya Devi. This representation was rejected in the year 2000. 6. Sh. The petitioner never represented against this seniority granted to Smt. Kaushalya Devi and for the first time in June, 1997 filed a representation praying that he be granted seniority over Smt. Kaushalya Devi. This representation was rejected in the year 2000. 6. Sh. Lokinder Thakur learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the representation of the petitioner on 15th November, 2000 gave him a fresh cause of action to challenge the seniority. I am unable to accept this contention. It is well settled law that long standing seniority should not be permitted to be changed at a belated stage. Assuming for the sake of arguments that Smt. Kaushalya Devi was junior to the petitioner. Admittedly she was promoted in the year 1985 and the petitioner joined as Assistant in January, 1986 after he was specifically told that he would forego his seniority in the Treasurer's cadre and would be placed at the bottom of the cadre of assistants as per his option. The petitioner willingly joined as assistant and right from 1986 till 1997 i.e. 11 long years he did not raise a whisper of protest in this regard. Now after so many years he cannot be permitted to urge that Smt. Kaushalya Devi was junior to him and he should be granted seniority in the list of assistants not only above her, but above many other employees. The petition having been filed at a highly belated stage has to be and is hereby rejected on this short ground alone. No order as to costs.