JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J Petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction to respondent to release all consequential benefits, i.e. seniority, pay fixation, monetary benefits alongwith 12% interest per annum to the petitioner at par with Assistant Engineers (Civil) appointed as per merit in the Select List dated 16.11.2004, prepared and recommended by Commission to the respondent-Department, from due date, i.e. since November, 2004. 2. On request of Irrigation and Public Health Department (I&PH) of Government of Himachal Pradesh, Public Service Commission (Commission) initiated recruitment process by issuing Advertisement No.II of 2003, inviting applications from eligible candidates for various posts, including six posts, of Assistant Engineers (Civil) Gazetted Class-I. Out of these six posts five posts were reserved for ‘general ex-servicemen’ and one for ‘Scheduled Caste ex-serviceman’ (backlog). Interviews for filling up these posts were conducted on 6th, 7th and 8th January, 2004 by the Selection Committee constituted by the Commission. Names of these candidates, including petitioner, were recommended, however a controversy was raised regarding these recommendations, whereupon petitioner alongwith co-petitioner had filed CWP No. 97 of 2004 seeking appropriate direction. 3. The said petition CWP No. 97 of 2004 was disposed of by Division Bench of this High Court vide judgment dated 22.4.2004 and thereafter interviews to the posts were again conducted on 26th and 27th October, 2004, wherein petitioner had appeared. Result of interview was declared on 16.11.2006 but the name of the petitioner was not amongst recommended candidates. 4. Inclusion of names of three candidates, namely, Rakesh Kumar, Sumit Sood and Rakesh Rana, in the select list was assailed by the petitioner by filing CWP-T No. 11665 of 2008 and one another Bhushan Lal Sharma also did so by filing CWP-T No. 6340 of 2008. 5. Out of aforesaid these three persons, Rakesh Kumar did not join. Petitioner had raised objection with respect to eligibility of Sumit Sood and Rakesh Rana on the ground that Sumit Sood was already employed as Junior Engineer in HPPWD and thus was not a dependant son/ward of ex-serviceman father/guardian and thus he was not falling in the definition of wards/dependants of ex-serviceman. Whereas Rakesh Rana was not possessing a degree in Civil Engineering or its equivalent qualification as per rules and his father being ex-serviceman had already availed benefit as he was already appointed against a vacancy reserved for ex-serviceman. 6. Whereas Rakesh Rana was not possessing a degree in Civil Engineering or its equivalent qualification as per rules and his father being ex-serviceman had already availed benefit as he was already appointed against a vacancy reserved for ex-serviceman. 6. Petitioner had also made a complaint against Sumit Sood and Rakesh Rana, whereupon a thorough inquiry was ordered to be conducted through Deputy Commissioner/Sub Divisional Magistrate as well as Head of the Department. After inquiry, it was reported that Sumit Sood had himself availed benefit of ex-serviceman while getting service as Junior Engineer in PWD and father of Rakesh Rana had also availed benefit of ex-serviceman by getting employment in IPH Department as Stenographer and these facts were also confirmed by Engineer-in-Chief IPH. 7. Show cause notice was issued to these persons for terminating their services for furnishing false information to the Department, which was assailed by them before erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal), which on abolition of Tribunal were transferred to this High court and dismissed being not maintainable against issuance of show cause notice. 8. Lateron, on the basis of opinion of Law Department, based upon the fact that Sumit Sood, at the time of getting job in HPPWD, had appeared as a general category candidate and not against post reserved for category of wards of ex-serviceman, nor his father had ever availed any such benefit under said quota, show cause notice issued against him was dropped. 9. Rakesh Rana was also considered to be eligible for equivalence of his degree with Civil Engineering. However, in judgment dated 3.10.2022 passed in CWP(T) Nos. 6340 and 11665 of 2008 it was held by this High Court that he was not falling within the criteria to consider him as a ward of ex-serviceman because his father had availed such benefit at earlier point of time, and, therefore, appointment of Rakesh Rana as Assistant Engineer in IPH Department was quashed and set aside and it was directed to the IPH Department to call for the names of next two meritorious candidates from the Commission and offer them appointment as Assistant Engineers in IPH Department after completing the codal formalities within two months after passing the order dated 3.10.2012 in these writ petitions. 10. 10. In furtherance to the aforesaid order passed by the Court vide memorandum dated 27.11.2013 appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) was offered to the petitioner, in sequel whereof petitioner joined the Department as Assistant Engineer (Civil). Thereafter, petitioner submitted a representation/request dated 5.5.2014 for consideration of his case for consequential benefits at par with the Assistant Engineers (Civil) appointed on the basis of interview held on 26th and 27th October, 2004. 11. In response to the request, matter was referred to the Law Department and it was examined at Government level in consultation with Law Department, whereby it was clarified that the High Court vide judgment dated 3.10.2012 directed the respondent-State to call the names of next two meritorious candidates from the Commission and offer them appointment as Assistant Engineers, but no consequential benefits were granted to the petitioner from the year 2004-05 as such Administrative Department was advised that it may act further accordingly. 12. It is claim of the respondent-State that appointment of petitioner has been made after quashing the selection of one candidate holding the post and no appointment can be made to a post from retrospective date, which was being occupied by another candidate and further that benefits of seniority and pay fixation cannot be extended to the petitioner at par to those candidates who had been serving in the Department since 2004, whereas petitioner was appointed in the year 2013, particularly when no such benefit has been ordered to be extended by the Court in the order in furtherance whereto he has been appointed. 13. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was deprived from appointment for omission and commission on the part of respondent- State and the Commission, because of recommendation of ineligible candidates at the cost of entitlement of petitioner for appointment on the basis of merit and as such petitioner has been deprived from appointment in November, 2004 despite no fault on his part, but for consideration of ineligible candidates against the post which would otherwise have been available to the petitioner alongwith other selected candidates appointed in November, 2004 and, therefore, it has been contended that petitioner is also entitled for all consequential benefits from the date of appointment of other candidates from the same Select List, i.e. since November, 2004. It has been claimed that petitioner is entitled for seniority immediately below the third candidate appointed on the basis of Select List dated 16.11.2004 at Sr. No. 4 and is entitled for all consequential benefits and the rejection of his claim on the ground that no consequential benefits were granted to the petitioner in the judgment is illegal and arbitrary because, in the given facts and circumstances, petitioner deserves to be considered appointed alongwith other candidates as per Select List of 16.11.2004 and, therefore, prayer for quashing communication dated 14.7.2014, whereby Department has refused extension of benefits to him as prayed by petitioner since November, 2004, has been made. 14. Response of respondent-State is that the Court in CWP-T No. 11665 of 2008 had directed the State to call for names of next two meritorious candidates from the Commission and offer them appointment as Assistant Engineers in IPH Department after completing codal formalities within a period of two months and this judgment nowhere granted consequential benefits to them and by offering appointment to any post in the Government is always from prospective date and not from retrospective date and all benefits to an employee are to be extended only after and from the date of joining and further that petitioner had joined on 5.12.2013 without any protest by accepting offer of appointment communicated vide order dated 27.11.2013. 15. Referring Pilla Sitaraman Patrudu and others Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 250 , learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no fault of the petitioner in delay in his appointment and, therefore, he is entitled to ranking given in the Select List and is to be considered appointed in November, 2004 alongwith other selectee candidates, as he was deprived from the appointment from the due date because of fault on the part of respondent-State and the Commission. 16. Referring C. Jayachandran Vs. State of Kerala and others, (2020) 5 SCC 230 , it has been contended that petitioner deserves to be deemed to have been appointed alongwith other appointees in November, 2004 and entitled for assigning the place of seniority accordingly as well as other benefits by considering him appointed from the said deemed date of appointment. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon Sudarshan Kumar Vs. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon Sudarshan Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, 2010 (Supp) Him L.R. 2401 to substantiate claim of the petitioner for entitlement of the petitioner to be considered as an appointee alongwith other selected candidates in the same recruitment process by common Select List. 18. Referring pronouncement in Robin Singh Mehta & others Vs. State of H.P. and others and connected matter, 2021 (1) Him L.R. (DB) 225, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner is also entitled for all consequential benefits from November, 2004 including seniority. 19. From the facts, it emerged that in absence of ineligible candidates in the Select List, petitioner was at Sr. No. 4 in his category and there were five posts advertised to be filled in that category and it is not a case where petitioner has joined his appointment on the basis of order passed in Writ Petition preferred by someone else, but it is a case where petitioner from the very beginning was agitating for his cause. As a matter of fact, he was amongst selected candidates in the first recommendation made by the Selection Committee, in furtherance to the interview conducted for the first time in January, 2004 and in the second list also, after exclusion of ineligible candidates, he figured at Sr. No. 4 in the merit of Select List but he had been excluded from the Select List on inclusion of ineligible candidates, which is definitely a fault on the part of recruitment Agency/Department, for which petitioner cannot be made to suffer. If ineligible candidates had not been included in the Select List, petitioner would have been appointed alongwith others in November, 2004 and in that eventuality he would have been entitled for all benefits including seniority since November, 2004 alongwith other selectees of the same Select List. 20. It is also a fact that though petitioner is entitled for appointment since November, 2004, however, he has joined the service only in the year 2013 and he has not actually worked since 2004 to 2013 and, therefore, in my considered opinion it cannot be fair to extend him monetary benefits in actual, but he, definitely, deserves for notional consequential monetary benefit from November, 2004 till his joining for fixation of pay and increments and other benefits etc. but for all consequential benefits thereto on actual basis since his joining the service. However, he shall be entitled for all other benefits on actual basis including seniority, counting of service towards pensionary benefits and promotion if any on the basis of that. 21. In view of above discussion and considering the pronouncements of the Courts, referred supra, rejection communicated vide communication dated 14.7.2014 is set aside and it is directed that petitioner shall be deemed to have been appointed alongwith other appointees under the appointment order dated 16.11.2004 and he shall be assigned a place of seniority in accordance with his placement in the order of merit in the Select List prepared by the Commission. 22. Respondent is directed to do the needful in terms of aforesaid directions on or before 30th June, 2023. The petition is allowed in aforesaid terms, so also pending applications, if any.