JUDGMENT P.S. Rana, Judge Order Present civil writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. Brief facts of the case as pleaded are that matter of petitioner was referred for adjudication to the Presiding Officer Labour Court Shimla on failure of conciliation proceedings between the parties. Petitioner pleaded that he was appointed as Storekeeper in the year 1980 i.e. on dated 4.8.1980. It is further pleaded that thereafter petitioner was transferred to the post of Clerk w.e.f. 2.2.1984. The petitioner pleaded that petitioner is entitled for calculation of his service as Storekeeper for seniority purpose and further pleaded that petitioner is also entitled for revised salary to the post of Storekeeper. It is further pleaded that Presiding Officer H.P. Labour Court Shimla on dated 25.7.1992 passed the award in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. It is further pleaded that Presiding Officer H.P. Labour Court Shimla ordered to pay scale of Rs.160-400 (Pre revised) w.e.f. 4.8.1980 i.e. date of appointment of the petitioner to the post of Storekeeper with all consequential benefits. Learned Presiding Officer H.P. Labour Court Shimla held that petitioner will be entitled for arrears which would be paid to the petitioner within one month from the date of publication of award in the official gazette i.e. Himachal Pradesh Rajpatra. It is further pleaded that feeling aggrieved against the award passed by learned Presiding Officer H.P. Labour Court Shimla H.P. State Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited Kishore Bhawan The Mall Shimla through its Managing Director filed CWP No. 144 of 1993 titled H.P. State Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited Shimla vs Kapil Dev. It is pleaded that CWP No. 144 of 1993 was disposed of by Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and CWP No. 144 of 1993 filed by H.P. State Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited Shimla was allowed and impugned award passed by learned Presiding Officer H.P. Labour Court Shimla was set aside. It is further pleaded that thereafter petitioner Kapil Dev filed SLP to Appeal (Civil) No. 8104 of 1996 titled Kapil Dev Sharma vs. State Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. before Hon’ble Apex Court of India and same was withdrawn on dated 08.04.1996 with liberty to approach the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. again for review. It is further pleaded that thereafter petitioner Kapil Dev filed SLP to Appeal (Civil) No. 8104 of 1996 titled Kapil Dev Sharma vs. State Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. before Hon’ble Apex Court of India and same was withdrawn on dated 08.04.1996 with liberty to approach the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. again for review. It is further pleaded that thereafter petitioner Shri Kapil Devi filed Civil Review Petition No. 50 of 1996 titled Kapil Dev vs. H.P. State Small Industries and Export Corporation and others. It is further pleaded that in Civil Review Petition No. 50 of 1996 the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh directed the Presiding Officer H.P. Labour Court Shimla to adjudicate the claim of petitioner regarding his placement in seniority list of Clerks maintained by H.P. State Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. Shimla. It is further pleaded that Hon’ble High Court further ordered in Civil Review Petition No. 50 of 1996 that Shri Kapil Dev would implead the other persons before the Labour Court who are placed above the petitioner in seniority list. It is also pleaded that Hon’ble High Court in Civil Review Petition No. 50 of 1996 held that Kapil Dev would not be entitled to any other consequential monetary and other benefits. It is further pleaded that thereafter in compliance to the directions of Hon’ble High Court of H.P. passed in Civil Review Petition No. 50 of 1996 titled Kapil Devi vs. H.P. State Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. and others Presiding Officer H.P. Labour Court Shimla held that Kapil Devi is not entitled for any relief of seniority and compensation. 2. Feeling aggrieved against the award dated 16.03.2001 passed by learned Presiding Officer H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Shimla petitioner filed the present petition pleaded therein that petitioner is legally entitled for seniority in the cadre of Clerks and he is also entitled for consequential monetary as well as promotional benefits. Prayer for acceptance of civil writ petition sought. 3. Per contra reply filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 pleaded therein that present petition is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that award passed by the Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Shimla was set aside in CWP No. 144 of 1993 by the Hon’ble High Court and plaintiff is not entitled for any seniority in the Clerical cadre post. 1 and 2 pleaded therein that present petition is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that award passed by the Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Shimla was set aside in CWP No. 144 of 1993 by the Hon’ble High Court and plaintiff is not entitled for any seniority in the Clerical cadre post. It is pleaded that HIMTRON factory at Chambaghat District Solan was closed and in order to provide employment the petitioner was appointed to the post of Clerk at Headquarter situated at Shimla. It is further pleaded that petitioner is legally entitled for seniority from the date of his appointment as Clerk in Clerk cadre and is not entitled to count his service of Storekeeper for the purpose of seniority in clerical cadre. It is pleaded that petitioner is agitating the same point again and again without any cause of action and prayer for dismissal of petition sought. 4. Per contra separate reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 5, 7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24 and 25 pleaded therein that petitioner has no cause of action to file petition. It is pleaded that other respondents are appointed in the cadre of Clerk much prior to the petitioner. It is further pleaded that petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition. It is also pleaded that petitioner has been rightly assigned the seniority in the seniority list on the basis of his appointment on the post of clerk in the office of respondent corporation. It is pleaded that seniority to the petitioner cannot be granted over and above the replying respondents. Prayer for dismissal of petition sought. 5. Court has heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. Court has also perused the entire record carefully. 6. Following points arise for determination in this civil writ petition:- 1. Whether services rendered by the petitioner in higher cadre of Storekeeper w.e.f. 4.8.1980 will be counted for calculating in seniority list of Clerical cadre which is lower cadre than Storekeeper cadre? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for consequential monetary and promotional benefits as alleged? Finding son point No.1 7. Whether services rendered by the petitioner in higher cadre of Storekeeper w.e.f. 4.8.1980 will be counted for calculating in seniority list of Clerical cadre which is lower cadre than Storekeeper cadre? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for consequential monetary and promotional benefits as alleged? Finding son point No.1 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that services rendered by the petitioner in higher cadre of Storekeeper w.e.f. 4.8.1980 to 01-02-1984 should be calculated for calculating seniority list of Clerical cadre which is lower cadre than Storekeeper is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In the present case it is proved on record that petitioner was appointed as Storekeeper on dated 4.8.1980. It is also proved on record that thereafter petitioner worked as Storekeeper w.e.f. 4.8.1980 to 1.2.1984. It is proved on record that thereafter petitioner was transferred to the post of clerk w.e.f. 2.2.1984. It is proved on record that a proposal to establish a unit in the electronic estate at Solan for manufacturing of T.V. tuners was submitted and it is also proved that Board had approved the said proposal and Board ordered the creation of following posts in the establishment:- It is proved on record that cadre of Storekeeper was shown as separate cadre from the post of Clerk and it is also proved on record that salary of Storekeeper was shown in pay scale of 160400 (Pre revised) whereas salary of Clerk was shown in the pay scale of Rs.110-250 (Pre-revised). It is proved on record that petitioner was holding the higher post of Storekeeper than Clerk. i) Manager(Electronic Engineer Senior level) Consolidated pay around Rs.2000/- per month (Pre-revised) One ii) Assistant Manager (Electronic Engineer) in scaleof Rs. 400-1100 (Pre-revised) One iii) Foreman (Die-maker) in the scale of Rs.300-600 (Pre-revised) One iv) Junior Accountant in the scale of Rs.160-400 (Pre-revised) One v) Storekeeper in the scale of Rs. 160-400(Pre-revised) One vi) Clerk in the scale of Rs. 110-250(Pre-revised) One vii) Peon in the scale of Rs. 70-95 (Pre-revised) One viii) Gatekeepr in the scale of Rs. 70-95(Pre-revised) One ix) Sweeper-cum-Chowkidar in the scale of Rs. 7095 (Pre-revised) One It is also proved on record that petitioner was recruited for higher post of Storekeeper than cadre of Clerk. It is also proved on record that cadre of Storekeeper and cadre of Clerk is not the same cadre but are two different cadres. 70-95(Pre-revised) One ix) Sweeper-cum-Chowkidar in the scale of Rs. 7095 (Pre-revised) One It is also proved on record that petitioner was recruited for higher post of Storekeeper than cadre of Clerk. It is also proved on record that cadre of Storekeeper and cadre of Clerk is not the same cadre but are two different cadres. It is well settled law that when a person is posted from higher cadre to lower cadre due to exigencies of circumstances then person who had rendered services in higher cadre is legally entitled for calculation of his service rendered in higher cadre for seniority in the lower cadre. It is proved on record that petitioner had served in higher cadre w.e.f. 4.8.1980 till 1.2.1984. It is also proved on record that thereafter petitioner was transferred from the post of Storekeeper to the post of lower cadre Clerk w.e.f. 2.2.1984. It is proved on record that thereafter respondents have shown the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Clerk w.e.f. 2.1.1984 from the date of appointment as Clerk and it is also proved on record that respondents have not considered the service rendered by the petitioner on the post of Storekeeper w.e.f. 4.8.1980 to 1.2.1984 for the purpose of seniority. Court has carefully perused the seniority list prepared by respondents in the cadre of Clerks. The petitioner has been shown at Sr. No. 23 in the seniority list of Clerks and appointment of the petitioner as Clerk has been shown w.e.f. 2.2.1984. It is held that petitioner is entitled for calculation of his service rendered by him in higher post i.e. Storekeeper for calculation of his seniority in the clerical cadre. Hence it is held that seniority of the petitioner ought to have been fixed at Sr. No. 14 after giving him the benefit of service rendered by the petitioner in the post of Storekeeper which is higher post than Clerical cadre. FindingsonPointNo.2 8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is also legally entitled for monetary and promotional benefits is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. No. 14 after giving him the benefit of service rendered by the petitioner in the post of Storekeeper which is higher post than Clerical cadre. FindingsonPointNo.2 8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is also legally entitled for monetary and promotional benefits is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that Hon’ble High Court of H.P. in Civil Review Petition No. 50 of 1996 titled Kapil Dev vs. H.P. State Small Industries and Export Corporation and others decided on 5.11.1997 held that petitioner would be legally entitled for placement in the seniority list of Clerks only and would not be entitled to any other consequential monetary benefits or other benefits. It is also proved on record that petitioner did not challenge the order of Hon’ble High Court of H.P. passed in Civil Review Petition No. 50 of 1996 titled Kapil Dev vs. H.P. State Small Industries and Export Corporation and others by way of SLP before Hon’ble Apex Court of India. It is held that order passed by Hon’ble High Court of H.P. in Civil Review Petition No. 50 of 1996 has attained the stage of finality. In view of order of Hon’ble High Court of H.P. announced in Civil Review Petition No. 50 of 1996 it is held that petitioner is not entitled for any consequential monetary and other benefits. 9. In view of above stated facts it is held that (1) services rendered by the petitioner in higher cadre of Storekeeper w.e.f. 04.08.1980 to 01.02.1984 will be counted for calculating seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Clerical post. It is held that petitioner will be placed in seniority list at Sr. No. 14 below Davinder Singh. It is further held that respondents will prepare fresh seniority list placing the petitioner at Sr. No. 14 in seniority list of Clerks. Award passed by Presiding Judge Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Shimla dated 16.3.2001 in case Reference No. 64 of 1991 is modified to this extent only. (2) It is held that petitioner is not entitle for any consequential monetary and other benefits in view of positive directions issued by Hon’ble High Court of H.P. in Civil Review Petition No. 50 of 1996 titled Kapil Dev vs. H.P. State Small Industries and Export Corporation and others. (2) It is held that petitioner is not entitle for any consequential monetary and other benefits in view of positive directions issued by Hon’ble High Court of H.P. in Civil Review Petition No. 50 of 1996 titled Kapil Dev vs. H.P. State Small Industries and Export Corporation and others. (3) All other reliefs sought by the petitioner decline and it is held that all other reliefs of the petitioner merge in point Nos. 1 and 2 determined by the Court. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. All pending miscellaneous application(s) also stand disposed of.