JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. Subject matter of this Letters Patent Appeal is judgment and order, dated 27th August, 2011, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 8200 of 2010, titled as Balak Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner was allowed and seniority of the appellant writ petitioner was to be reckoned with effect from 28th October, 2006, as part time water carrier with all consequential benefits (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment"). 2. The grievance projected by the appellant-writ petitioner in this Letters Patent Appeal is that the appellant-writ petitioner was entitled to seniority and other consequential benefits right from the date he was denied the appointment with effect from 20th August, 1997. 3. Precisely, the case of the appellant-writ petitioner was that he was denied appointment as water carrier by showing favours upon one Smt. Kala Devi, who was appointed illegally, to which the appellant-writ petitioner was entitled to. 4. The appellant-writ petitioner challenged her appointment before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Camp at Mandi (here in after referred to as "the erstwhile Tribunal") by the medium of Original Application, being OA (M) No. 371 of 1997, titled as Balak Ram v. State of H.P. and others, which was allowed vide judgment and order, dated 12th October, 2006, whereby the appointment of Smt. Kala Devi was quashed and the appellant-writ petitioner was allowed to be appointed. It is apt to reproduce para 12 and 13 of the judgment here in: "12. This conclusion is further strengthened by the contents of letter No. SNR/STN/W/G/97-8514 from S.D.O. (Civil) Sunder Nagar addressed to the Deputy Commissioner Mandi found at leaf No. 35 of the record produced by respondents No. 1 to 3 (a photo copy whereof has been ordered to be placed on the file of the original application) which clearly and unambiguously states that 15 marks ought to have been awarded to the applicant under the head 'IRDP/handicapped' and that there were a lot of cuttings in the preliminary list prepared by Distt. Primary Education Officer and BDO, Sundernagar which appeared to have been done by some one with mala fide intention as the requisite certificates of the applicant were found enclosed with the documents of the applicant. Primary Education Officer and BDO, Sundernagar which appeared to have been done by some one with mala fide intention as the requisite certificates of the applicant were found enclosed with the documents of the applicant. Therefore concludes the SDM that the applicant should be selected and respondent No. 4 be removed from service immediately and after the needful reply might be filed in the Tribunal accordingly. 13. It is unfortunate that superior authorities did nothing in the matter despite the truthful, lawful, honest and fair submissions of the SDM and on the contrary the respondents filed a reply justifying the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 by concealing the true facts despite the fact that the record justifying the submissions made by the SDO (C) was available with their department. What is more unfortunate, distressing and shocking is that by such concealment respondents apparently deprived the applicant a poor handicapped person of the job he deserved for a period of about 9 years. Certainly it is a case where exemplary costs must be awarded against respondents for dragging the applicant to an avoidable litigation and by concealment of facts gave life of about 9 years to such litigation." 5. The said judgment has attained finality. The appellant writ petitioner was allowed to join, but was not granted the seniority and other service benefits with effect from 20th August, 1997, constraining the appellant-writ petitioner to file CWP No. 8200 of 2010, with a prayer that the appellant-writ petitioner be granted seniority and also wages, on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 6. Learned Single Judge has passed one-page judgment without discussing the matrix of the case and directed the respondents to grant seniority to the appellant-writ petitioner with effect from 28th October, 2006, i.e. from the date on which he joined after making success in the Original Application before the erstwhile Tribunal and has not granted the relief, i.e. seniority right from the date Smt. Kala Devi was appointed. 7. It is admitted that the appellant-writ petitioner was denied his rights and Smt. Kala Devi was appointed illegally. Had the respondents not appointed Smt. Kala Devi illegally at the particular point of time, i.e. on 20th August, 1997, the appellant-writ petitioner would have been appointed and would have been in the employment right from that date, but he was deprived of his legitimate rights by making illegal appointment order. Had the respondents not appointed Smt. Kala Devi illegally at the particular point of time, i.e. on 20th August, 1997, the appellant-writ petitioner would have been appointed and would have been in the employment right from that date, but he was deprived of his legitimate rights by making illegal appointment order. 8. The Apex Court in a case titled as Sanjay Dhar v. J & K Public Service Commission and another, reported in (2000) 8 SCC 182 , has dealt with the issue and held that when a candidate is deprived of appointment illegally, he is deemed to have been appointed right from the same date. It is apt to reproduce paras 14 to 16 of the judgment herein: "14. .........As the appellant participated in the process of selection protected by the interim orders of the High Court and was also successful having secured third position in the select list, he could not have been denied appointment. The appellant is, therefore, fully entitled to the relief of his appointment being calculated w.e.f. the same date from which the candidates finding their place in the order of appointments issued pursuant to the select list prepared by the J&K PSC for 1992- 93 were appointed and deserves to be assigned notionally a place in seniority consistently with the order of merit assigned by the J&K PSC. 15. We have already noticed the learned Single Judge having directed the appellant to be appointed on the post of Munsif in the event of his name finding place in the select list subject to the outcome of the writ petition which order was modified by the Division Bench in LPA staying the order of the learned Single Judge but at the same time directing one vacancy to be kept reserved. The High Court and the Government of J&K (Law Department) were not justified in bypassing the judicial order of the High Court and making appointments exhausting all available vacancies. The right of the appellant, if otherwise sustainable, cannot be allowed to be lost merely because of an appointment having been made wittingly or unwittingly in defiance of the judicial order of the High Court. 16. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside. The right of the appellant, if otherwise sustainable, cannot be allowed to be lost merely because of an appointment having been made wittingly or unwittingly in defiance of the judicial order of the High Court. 16. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside. It is directed that the appellant shall be deemed to have been appointed along with other appointees under the appointment order dated 6-3-1995 and assigned a place of seniority consistently with his placement in the order of the merit in the select list prepared by J&K PSC and later forwarded to the Law Department. During the course of hearing the learned senior counsel for the appellant made a statement at the Bar that the appellant was interested only in having his seniority reckoned notionally in terms of this order and was not claiming any monetary benefit by way of emoluments for the period for which he would have served in case he would have been appointed by order dated 6-3-1995. We record that statement and direct that the appellant shall be entitled only to the benefit of notional seniority (and not monetary benefits) being given to him by implementing this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The contesting respondents shall pay the appellant costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/-." 9. A learned Single Judge of this Court in a case titled as Hem Chand v. State of H.P. & others, reported in 2014 (3) Him L.R. 1962, has taken the same view. It is apt to reproduce paras 3 and 4 of the judgment herein: "3. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner was delayed for no fault of his and came to be appointed only in the year 2009, that too after the intervention of this Court. The result of delayed appointment of the petitioner is that he has been paid less salary and denied the seniority over a long period of time. It has been consistently opined that in case a candidate is wrongly denied appointment for no fault on his part, he cannot be denied appointment from due date and consequential seniority. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to 1996 (8) SCC 637 , Pilla sitaram Patrudu & others v. Union of India and others, 2000 (8) SCC 182 Sanjay Dhar v. J&K Public Service Commission & another, 1991 (6) Vol. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to 1996 (8) SCC 637 , Pilla sitaram Patrudu & others v. Union of India and others, 2000 (8) SCC 182 Sanjay Dhar v. J&K Public Service Commission & another, 1991 (6) Vol. 76, Services Law Reporter 753, Hawa Singh Sangwan v. Union of India & others and 1996 (6) vol. 116, Services Law Reporter, 335, Hawa Singh and others v. The Haryana State Electricity Board. Moreover, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not recommended to appointed on 26.6.2004 be but the only ground taken is that it was the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Sawindhar, Tehsil Karsog, who delayed the appointment of the petitioner. This is the precise reason that the petitioner is entitled for the seniority from the date of offer of appointment, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in similar circumstances, in case titled as Chatter Singh v. State of H.P. & others, CWP No. 188 of 2012-I:- "3. No doubt, the petitioner joined duty only on 13.5.2003. But in his favour admittedly there is an order by the Appointing Authority on 8.8.2002 to give appointment, as has been noted by the Tribunal in Annexure P-1, order. It is that order, which has been upheld by the Tribunal and the direction issued by the Tribunal is for implementing the said order. Therefore, for all purposes, the petitioner shall be deemed to be appointed on 8.8.2002, on the date admittedly the petitioner was directed to be appointed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has joined duly on 13.5.2003 after the order was issued to him, the entitlement of the petitioner for actual monetary benefit shall be only from 13.5.2003. In order to avoid any ambiguity, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be deemed to be appointed in the post of Gramin Vidya Upasak on 8.8.2002 for all purposes; but from 8.8.2002 to 13.5.2003, the benefits shall only be notional and from 13.5.2003, the petitioner shall be entitled to all monetary benefits." 4. In order to avoid any ambiguity, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be deemed to be appointed in the post of Gramin Vidya Upasak on 8.8.2002 for all purposes; but from 8.8.2002 to 13.5.2003, the benefits shall only be notional and from 13.5.2003, the petitioner shall be entitled to all monetary benefits." 4. In view of the exposition of the law referred to above, the petitioner is entitled to be treated as having been appointed as a Part Time Water Carrier at Government Primary School Alyas, Gram Panchayat, Sawindhar, Karsog-II, District Mandi from 30.6.2004, pursuant to the recommendation of the Government of H.P., as per order dated 26.6.2004 for the purpose of seniority. However, the entitlement of the petitioner for actual monetary benefits shall be only from 9.6.2009. In order to avoid any ambiguity, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be deemed to be appointed as Part Time Water Carrier from 30.6.2004 for all purposes, but from 30.6.2004 to 9.6.2009, the benefits shall only be notional and w.e.f. 9.6.2009, the petitioner shall be entitled to all monetary benefits." 10. Having said so, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment needs to be modified by providing that the appellant-writ petitioner is entitled to seniority notionally (not monetary benefits) right from the date Smt. Kala Devi was appointed, i.e. 20th August, 1997. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is modified, as indicated hereinabove. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. Appeal allowed.