JUDGMENT Dev Darshan, J. (oral) All these petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. Adverting to the facts of the petitions filed by Shri Puran Chand and another and Dharam Singh, the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondent Municipal Corporation in promoting respondent S/Sh. Prakash Sharma and Mansa Ram as clerks. Shri Prakash Sharma is respondent No.3 in both these petitions. Bereft of all details, the case of the petitioners is this that they were senior to respondent No.3 in the tentative seniority list, Annexure A-1 in Puran Chand’s case. Petitioners namely, Puran Chand is shown at serial No.30, Dharam Singh is shown at serial No. 27 and Smt. Sunita Rani is shown at serial No.47 in the tentative seniority list of Peons/Chowkidars. Respondent Prakash Sharma is shown at serial No.50 in the said list. No relief has been claimed against Shri Mansa Ram and was given up at the time of hearing of the petitions. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that since the respondents, who were junior to them, they could not have been promoted superseding the claim of the petitioners herein. Respondent Prakash Sharma had instituted a petition being CWP No. 1622 of 1995 in this Court which was disposed of on 2nd May, 1996 with the following directions: “Records have been produced, which have been perused by the learned counsel for the petitioner and it is not disputed that the petitioner is actually discharging the duties of a Clerk/Ahlmad from the date he was appointed as Peon. Therefore, as the petitioner has completed more than 9 years of service, we direct the respondent-corporation to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as Clerk/Ahlmad within a period of three months from today. However, he shall not be entitled for any past wages of a Clerk/Ahlmad. His seniority shall be counted as per procedure/rules without disturbing the seniority of the persons who are regularly appointed or whose services have been regularized.” 3. The Municipal Corporation appealed before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court vide its order dated 16.9.1996 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18101/96 directed: “The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the High Court has not perused the record. The Municipal Corporation appealed before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court vide its order dated 16.9.1996 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18101/96 directed: “The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the High Court has not perused the record. On the other hand, as per the findings in the order of the High Court, the counsel for the petitioner (respondent herein) has perused the record but not the Court. It is the case of the Government that he never worked as a clerk. All through he discharged the duty as a Peon. He further contended that even assuming that he discharged the duties, the direction to regularize him for the post of Clerk is contrary to the Rules since the respondent has not fulfilled the qualifications prescribed for the post. For acceptance of these contentions, the appropriate course open to the petitioner is to file a review petition in the High Court. For the first time all these averments have been made on fresh facts. Liberty is, therefore, given to the petitioner to file a review petition within a period of 30 days from today. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly disposed of.” 4. Pursuant thereto, review petition being Civil Review No. 90/96 was preferred in this Court, which was accepted in the following terms:- “7. Hence, the judgment dated 2.5.1996 in C.W.P. No. 1622 of 1995 is reviewed and it is set aside. It is held that this Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the said matter and the CWP is dismissed. The review petition is allowed. It is open to the petitioner, namely, Prakash Chand to approach the Administrative Tribunal with an appropriate application for getting his remedies. No costs.” 5. The Municipal Corporation admitted that Shri Puran Chand and Shri Dharam Singh , who are shown at serial No.30 and 27 respectively and Smt. Sunita Rani is shown at serial No. 47 in the tentative seniority list. It is further contended that in CWP NO. 1840 of 1995, titled as Devi Roop vs. Municipal Corporation, Shimla this Court issued directions to regularize services of employees who were performing/discharging the duties of Clerk which direction was also issued in CWP No.1622 of 1995. A Departmental Promotion Committee was convened in the year 1998 when junior persons Sh.Bhim Singh, Smt. Geeta Thakur, Smt. Seema Devi, Sh. 1840 of 1995, titled as Devi Roop vs. Municipal Corporation, Shimla this Court issued directions to regularize services of employees who were performing/discharging the duties of Clerk which direction was also issued in CWP No.1622 of 1995. A Departmental Promotion Committee was convened in the year 1998 when junior persons Sh.Bhim Singh, Smt. Geeta Thakur, Smt. Seema Devi, Sh. Daleep and Smt. Asha Takur were appointed as Clerks and it is in these circumstances, he was promoted. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, I do not find any justification to keep the petitioner out of the way of promotion. Surely, if employees junior to the petitioners ( which fact has been admitted by the Municipal Corporation) in the category of Class-IV staff were granted promotion, there is no reason as to why the petitioners cannot be promoted. What I find from the facts of the case is that the respondent Prakash Sharma approached this Court for promotion to the post of clerk which was directed accordingly, whereafter the Municipal Corporation went in appeal before the Supreme Court and then again a review petition was preferred before this court as per the directions of the Supreme Court. The review petition was allowed. After this original application was instituted in the Tribunal by the respondents during which period persons junior to him were promoted and consequently he was also directed to be promoted to the post of Clerk. It is thereafter that the petitioners approached the Tribunal with the prayer that since the private respondent was junior to them and was promoted to the post of clerk, they being senior to him in the seniority list of Class-IV employees, deserve to be promoted from the date on which such promotion is granted to Shri Prakash Sharma. It is also undisputed before me that Shri Puran Chand retired on 29.2.2012. 7. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in order not to disturb the seniority of private respondent as also others who may have been appointed to the posts of Clerk during the intervening period, without treating this judgment as a precedent, I direct that (a) the petitioners shall be deemed to have been promoted to the post of Clerk with effect from 2.6.2001 when Sh. Prakash Sharma was promoted to the post of Clerk. Prakash Sharma was promoted to the post of Clerk. Seniority will be granted to them as from today at the bottom to the list of clerks. They will not be entitled to the arrears of monetary benefits, (b) that their pay as Clerks will be fixed w.e.f. 2.6.2001, the date from which Shri Prakash Sharma has been promoted as clerk and they would be entitled to all increments and other admissible benefits in the pay band from that date and for the purpose of salary and other retrial benefits admissible. These increments/benefits shall be included and applicable from 26.9.2001. Notional step ups in the pay band will be counted towards pensionary and others retrial benefits of the petitioners. Writ petitions disposed of. No orders as to the costs. 8. In view of what I held above, CWP No. 8455 of 2010 becomes infructuous. 9. All pending applications also stand disposed of.