JUDGMENT : By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:­ “a) That Writ of Certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing and setting aside Annexure P­6 & Annexure P7, whereby the representation of the petitioners has been rejected as well as the provisional seniority list circulated by the respondent board dated 26.2.2011. (b) That writ of Mandamus may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to promote the petitioners from the due date alongwith all consequential benefits with interest.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition `are as under:­ The case of the petitioners is that they were engaged in the respondent­Board on daily wage basis as T­mates as under:­ Petitioner No.1: Date of engagement 26.11.1981, petitioner No.2: date of engagement 21.11.1982, petitioner No.3: date of engagement 26.11.1983. Further, as per the averments made in the petition, petitioner No.1 continuously served with respondent­Board w.e.f. 01.08.1986, petitioner No.2 w.e.f. 21.09.1986 and petitioner No.3 w.e.f. 21.08.1987. Annexure P/1 is the seniority list dated 04.07.1997, which has been placed on record to demonstrate the said fact, in which the names of the petitioners are at serial No.17, 18 and 22, respectively. It is further the case of the petitioners that the services of the petitioners were subsequently regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2000 and the work charge status was conferred upon them w.e.f. 01.01.1998. This was done by respondent­Board by construing their date of engagement, to be the date and year from which they continuously served the respondent­Board. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that in the year 2011, vide Annexure P/7, a provisional seniority list of T­mates as on 01.01.2011 was circulated by respondent­Board and perusal thereof demonstrated that whereas the petitioners were placed on work charge status and thereafter regularized by taking their date of engagement to be 01.08.1986, 21.09.1986 and 21.08.1987, respectively, however, the services of the private respondents who were initially recruited on daily wage basis as T­mates after the petitioners, were in fact brought on work charge basis and were subsequently regularized by taking the date of their recruitment to be the initial date of their engagement. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the documents on record (including the documents appended with the reply filed by respondent­Board, Annexure P/1) clearly demonstrates that the initial date of engagement of the petitioners on daily wage basis is prior to the private respondents, yet in the matter of conferment of work charge status as also regularization, they have discriminated vis­à­vis the private respondents. Accordingly, he has submitted that Annexures P/6 and P/7 as prayed for, be quashed and set aside as the provisional seniority list which has been circulated by respondent­Board be also declared as bad and a direction be issued to the respondents to confer the work charge status as well as regularize services of the petitioners by taking into consideration the date when they were initially recruited on daily wage basis with all consequential benefits including promotions. 5. The petition is resisted by respondent­Board, inter alia, on the ground that in terms of Annexure RA1, as the private respondents were senior to the petitioners as far as the date of initial engagement is concerned, therefore, there is nothing wrong with the action of respondent­Board of conferring work charge status/regularization and promotion on the private respondents before the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel also argued that respondent­Board has been regularizing the daily wage rated persons in different categories engaged by it, pursuant to the settlement arrived between the Board of Management and the representatives of the Employees Union before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue of fixation of seniority etc. as also the relevant Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Petitioners belong to the cadre of T­mates and the said cadre is a divisional cadre and the private respondents were brought on regular cadre of T­mate on the basis of seniority position as also subject to the availability of the post. According to him, the petitioners were juniors as daily rated beldar to the private respondents and the services of the petitioners were thus brought on regular cadre by the respondent­Board as per their turn. Accordingly, a prayer has been made that as there is no merit in the present petition, the same be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended with the petition. 8. Accordingly, a prayer has been made that as there is no merit in the present petition, the same be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended with the petition. 8. The prayer of the petitioners has already been referred to by me in the above part of the order. The stand of the respondent­Board has also been referred to by me in the above part of the order. A perusal of Annexure P/5, which is the order passed by the competent authority, pursuant to the directions passed by this Court in an earlier writ petition filed by the present petitioners, i.e. CWPT No.7517 of 2008, decided on 13.12.2010, demonstrates that the reasons which have been given therein while rejecting the claim of the petitioners are akin to the stand which has been taken by the respondent­Board in its reply. 9. As per the petitioners, the initial date of engagement of the private respondents is later than that of the petitioners. A perusal of Annexure P/1, which is the seniority list of the daily rated temporary workmen circulated by the respondent­Board, dated 04.07.1992 harmoniously read with Annexure RA­1, which is a comparative statement of the applicants and respondents appended by the respondent­Board with its reply, demonstrates that there is merit in the said contention of the petitioners. The date of initial engagement of private respondents as per record is after the petitioners. 10. That being the case, it is not understood as to how the conferment of work charge status and regularization of the private respondents could have been before the petitioners. Though, it has been mentioned in the reply by the respondent­Board that the cadre of T­mates is a divisional cadre, but then it is not spelled out either in Annexure P/6 or in the reply of the respondent­Board that the private respondents were serving in some other divisional cadre as compared to the petitioners. In fact, the stand of the respondent-Board is that the private respondents were senior to the petitioners. In fact, the stand of the respondent-Board is that the private respondents were senior to the petitioners. As there is no justification in the reply in the light of what is contained in Annexure P/1 as also Annexure RA­1, as to why the private respondents were conferred work charge status and regularization as also further promotion before the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition deserves to be allowed. At this stage, it is further relevant to mention that there is no whisper in the response filed by the respondent­Board, from which it could be inferred that though the engagement of the petitioners was prior to that of private respondents, but in between the petitioners either left the job, so as to justify the conferment of work charge status/regularization/promotion of the private respondents before the petitioners or there was some other valid reason behind it. 11. Accordingly, as the petitioners have been discriminated vis­à­vis the private respondents, who were initially engaged after the petitioners, this writ petition succeeds and whereas Annexure P/6 is quashed and set aside, the provisional and final seniority list are ordered to be read down by issuing a direction to the respondent­Board to re-fix the work charge status as also the date of regularization of the petitioners by construing their initial date of engagement to be the date of their first engagement in the respondent­Board, as mentioned in the petition, i.e. the initial date of their engagement. Consequential benefits including promotion etc. to ensue. Actual monitory benefits be confined to three years before the passing of the judgment by this Court and till then monitory notional benefits be given to the petitioners. It is made clear that the Court is not setting aside the conferment of work charge status or regularization or subsequent promotions which have been given to the private respondents and in case the need so arises, then for the purpose of implementation of this judgment, the respondent­Board may create superannuary posts in favour of the petitioners, as a matter personal to them. 12. Petition is disposed of in above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.