Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 218 (HP)

DEV DUTT v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-04-02

RAJIV SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged the seniority list, Annexure R-4, which was issued on 01.01.1986. They have not explained the delay and laches. It is well settled law by now that settled things should not be unsettled, more particularly, when it pertains to the seniority. 2. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Bajwa and another Vs. State of Punjab and others, (1998) 2 SCC 523 have held that the question of seniority should not be reopened in such situations after a lapse of reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. Their Lordships have held as under: "7. Having heard both sides we are satisfied that the writ petition was wrongly entertained and allowed by the single Judge and, therefore, the judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench have both to be set aside. The undisputed facts appearing from the record are alone sufficient to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of latches because the grievance made by B.S. Bajwa and B.D. Gupta only in 1984 which was long after they had entered the department in 1971-72. During this entire period of more than a decade they were all along treated as junior to the order aforesaid persons and the rights inter se had crystalised which ought not to have been re-opened after the lapse of such a long period. At every stage the others were promoted before B.S. Bajwa and B.D.Gupta and this position was known to B.S. Bajwa and B.D. Gupta right from the beginning as found by the Division Bench itself. It is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be re-opened in such situations after the lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. There was inordinate delay in the present case for making such a grievance. This alone was sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 and to reject the writ petition." Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.S. Vankani and others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2010) 4 SCC 301 have held that seniority once settled should not be unsettled at the instance of juniors in service. Their Lordships have further held that seniority is a civil right which has an important and vital role to play in one's service career. State of Gujarat and Others, (2010) 4 SCC 301 have held that seniority once settled should not be unsettled at the instance of juniors in service. Their Lordships have further held that seniority is a civil right which has an important and vital role to play in one's service career. Their Lordships have held as under: "38. Seniority is a civil right which has an important and vital role to play in one's service career. Future promotion of a Government servant depends either on strict seniority or on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority etc. Seniority once settled is decisive in the upward march in one's chosen work or calling and gives certainty and assurance and boosts the morale to do quality work. It instills confidence, spreads harmony and commands respect among colleagues which is a paramount factor for good and sound administration. If the settled seniority at the instance of one's junior in service is unsettled, it may generate bitterness, resentment, hostility among the Government servants and the enthusiasm to do quality work might be lost. Such a situation may drive the parties to approach the administration for resolution of that acrimonious and poignant situation, which may consume lot of time and energy. The decision either way may drive the parties to litigative wilderness to the advantage of legal professionals both private and Government, driving the parties to acute penury. It is well known that salary they earn, may not match the litigation expenses and professional fees and may at times drive the parties to other sources of money making, including corruption. Public money is also being spent by the Government to defend their otherwise untenable stand. Further it also consumes lot of judicial time from the lowest court to the highest resulting in constant bitterness among parties at the cost of sound administration affecting public interest. Courts are repeating the ratio that the seniority once settled, shall not be unsettled but the men in power often violate that ratio for extraneous reasons, which, at times calls for departmental action. Legal principles have been reiterated by this Court in Union of India and Another v. S.K. Goel and Others (2007) 14 SCC 641 , T.R. Kapoor v. State of Haryana (1989) 4 SCC 71 , Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 604 . Legal principles have been reiterated by this Court in Union of India and Another v. S.K. Goel and Others (2007) 14 SCC 641 , T.R. Kapoor v. State of Haryana (1989) 4 SCC 71 , Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 604 . In view of the settled law the decisions cited by the appellants in G.P. Doval's case (supra), Prabhakar and Others case, G. Deendayalan, R.S. Ajara are not applicable to the facts of the case. 39. Courts are repeating the ratio that the seniority once settled, shall not be unsettled but the men in power often violate that ratio for extraneous reasons, which, at times calls for departmental action. Legal principles have been reiterated by this Court in Union of India v. S.K. Goel, T.R. Kapoor v. State of Haryana and Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana. In view of the settled law the decisions cited by the appellants in G.P. Doval case, Prabhakar case, G. Deendayalan and R.S. Ajara are not applicable to the facts of the case." 3. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application, if any. No costs. Petition dismissed.