JUDGMENT : By way of instant appeal, appellants have assailed the judgment dated 11.08.2011 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP(T) No. 14579 of 2008. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: - 2.1. Both the respondents were appointed to the posts of Steno Typist on the same day i.e. 1.7.1978. Respondent No.1 being elder in age was placed above respondent No.2 in seniority. Respondent No.1 belonged to “General Category”, whereas second respondent was from “Scheduled Caste” category. 2.2 Respondent No. 2 by virtue of availability of roster points in promotional posts of Junior Scale Stenographer, Senior Scale Stenographer and Personal Assistant every time got promoted prior to respondent No.1. 2.3 In the seniority list of Senior Scale Stenographers, respondent No.1 was placed higher in seniority than respondent No.2 by applying “catch-up principle”. However, in the seniority list of Personal Assistants, respondent No.2 was given higher placement. Apprehending the promotion of respondent No. 2 to the post of Private Secretary before him, respondent No.1 approached the State Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 31 of 2007. During the pendency of the said Original Application, respondent No.2 was promoted to the post of Private Secretary. 2.4 Both the respondents have retired since long. 3. On abolition of State Administrative Tribunal, OA No. 31 of 2007 was transferred to this Court as CWP(T) No. 14579 of 2008. Learned Single Judge after placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh and others (II) v. State of Punjab and others, (1999) 7 SCC 209 , allowed CWP(T) No. 14579 of 2008 and held respondent No.1 entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Private Secretary after re-drawing the seniority list in accordance with the ratio laid down in Ajit Singh supra. Petition of respondent No.1 was allowed in following terms:- “6. In view of the aforesaid instructions and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, petitioner, who belongs to general category and was placed above respondent No.3 in the seniority List of Steno typists, or say the initial (lowest) cadre, to which petitioner and respondent No.3 were appointed on the same date, is entitled to be placed above respondent No.3, in the cadre of Personal Assistants, to which post respondent No.3 was appointed by promotion, earlier to the petitioner, against a post, reserved for SC candidates. 7. 7. Consequently, writ petition is allowed and respondent No.2 is directed to re-draw Seniority List of Personal Assistants, in accordance with the aforesaid judgments and the instructions issued by the government to implement the said judgments and to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Private Secretary, in accordance with the re-drawn Seniority List. Petitioner shall be entitled to all monetary and pensionary benefits (because, by now, she has retired), in case she, on consideration, is found to be entitled to promotion to the post of Private Secretary. The aforesaid direction be complied with by 30.11.2011.” 4. Respondents remained contended with the judgment passed by learned Single Judge and none of them came forward to challenge the same. However, the State, for the reasons best known to it, has filed the instant appeal, assailing the judgment passed by learned Single Judge. 5. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General for the Appellant/State and Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No1 and have also gone through the record carefully. 6. State contested the claim of petitioner in original application, primarily on the ground that petitioner therein had been working as Personal Assistant on ad-hoc basis, therefore, she had no claim to the post of Private Secretary and her name could not be included in the seniority list of Personal Assistants unless and until her ad-hoc promotion was regularized. However, while addressing arguments at the time of hearing of this appeal, learned Additional Advocate General came up with altogether a new plea that respondent No.1 had no claim for promotion to the post of Private Secretary for the reason that Recruitment and Promotion Rules required minimum five years regular service or regular combined with continuous ad-hoc service rendered, if any, in the grade of Personal Assistants. Since, respondent No.1 did not fulfill such criteria, she was not considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for the post of Private Secretary. 7. As noticed above, learned Single Judge on the strength of Ajit Singh supra held the right of respondent No.1 to be placed in Seniority list of Personal Assistants above respondent No.2. It is evident from the judgment passed by learned Single Judge that neither the ground as taken by the appellant-State in its reply filed to the Original Application nor the stand now canvassed before this Court had ever been agitated before the writ court. It is evident from the judgment passed by learned Single Judge that neither the ground as taken by the appellant-State in its reply filed to the Original Application nor the stand now canvassed before this Court had ever been agitated before the writ court. In view of this matter, the appellant cannot be allowed to raise any new grievance, which it had failed to raise before learned Single Judge. 8. In any case, the grounds raised by the State in its reply to the Original Application or as sought to be raised in this appeal are not made out from the reading of following provisions of Recruitment and Promotion Rules: - 11. In case recruitment by promotion, Deputation, transfer grade from which Promotion, deputation, transfer is to be made By promotion from amongst the Personal Assistants who possess five years regular Service or regular combined with continuous ad-hoc service rendered, if any, in the grade. (1) In all cases of promotion, the continuous ad-hoc service rendered in the feeder post, if any, prior to regular appointment to the post shall be taken into account towards the length of service as prescribed in these Rules for promotion subject to the condition that the ad-hoc appointment/promotion in the feeder category had been made after following proper acceptable process of selection in accordance with the provisions of R&P Rules, provided that: (i) In all cases where a junior person becomes eligible for consideration by virtue of his total length of service (including the service rendered on ad-hoc basis followed by regular service/appointment in the feeder post in view of the provisions rendered to above) all persons senior to him in the respective category/post/cadre shall be deemed to be eligible for consideration and placed above the junior person in the zone of consideration; Provided that all incumbents to be considered for promotion shall possess the minimum qualifying service of at least three years or that prescribed in the R&P Rules for the Post, whichever is less: ……………………………” Thus, the ad-hoc service or less than five years’ service of respondent No.1 in the feeder category of Personal Assistant could not be an impediment in grant of relief to him. 9. Additionally, it is not understandable, as to why the State had filed the instant appeal, when the real interested parties had chosen to accept the verdict. 9. Additionally, it is not understandable, as to why the State had filed the instant appeal, when the real interested parties had chosen to accept the verdict. Nothing has been brought on record to illustrate any justification for filing the instant appeal by the State. It is not the case where the judgment passed by learned Single Judge was to be considered as a judgment in rem. No specific prejudice has been pleaded by the appellant-State. In Sub Inspector Roop Lal and another vs. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi and others, (2000) 1 SCC 644 , a three Judge Bench of Supreme Court has observed as under: - “24. Before concluding, we are constrained to observe that the role played by the respondents in this litigation is far from satisfactory. In our opinion, after laying down appropriate rules governing the service conditions of its employees, a State should only play the role of an impartial employer in the inter-se dispute between its employees. If any such dispute arises, the State should apply the rules laid down by it fairly. Still if the matter is dragged to a judicial forum, the State should confine its role to that of amicus curiae by assisting the judicial forum to a correct decision. Once a decision is rendered by a judicial forum, thereafter the State should not further involve itself in litigation. The matter thereafter should be left to the parties concerned to agitate further, if they so desire. When a State, after the judicial forum delivers a judgment, files review petition, appeal etc. it gives an impression that it is espousing the cause of a particular group of employees against another group of its own employees, unless of course there are compelling reasons to resort to such further proceedings. In the instant case, we feel the respondent has taken more than necessary interest which is uncalled for. This act of the State has only resulted in waste of time and money of all concerned.” 10. In the light of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.