IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 5534 of 2008. Decided on: 10.11.2010. __________________________________________________ Sh. Madan Lal … Petitioner. Versus The Himachal Pradesh State Handicrafts and Handloom Corporation Ltd. and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : None despite actual date notice to the petitioner and his learned counsel. For the respondents : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt. Adv. Gen. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. (Oral). The petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs: “7 (a). That the respondents be directed to amend the seniority lists of the Weaving Masters as on 31.3.1990 circulated vide letter No. HPSHHC:36 (1/82)-Estt-8913-9179 dated 1.9.1990 is annexed as Annexure A-3 by placing the applicant at Sr. No. 23 instead of Sr. No. 34 and at Sr. No. 20 instead of Sr. No. 31 in the seniority list of Weaving Masters as stood on 1.1.1994 Annexure A-4 and at Sr. no. 18 instead of Sr. No. 28 in the seniority list of Weaving Masters as it stood on 30.6.1997 Annexure A-10 with all consequential benefits; and (b). That the respondents be directed to promote the applicant as Assistant Technician (Craftsman) from retrospective date in accordance to this actual seniority with arrear of pay allowances and consequential benefits. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 2. The respondents have taken the following stand, vide paras 3, 6 (c ) and 6 (d) of the reply:- “3. That the contents of para 3 of the O.A. not admitted correct hence denied as contrary to the record. It is further submitted that the applicant did not represent within the limitation as prescribed under the Rules. The applicant did not represent from 1.9.1990 to 8.7.96 against the seniority lists circulated during the year 1990 and 1994 of Weaving Masters and kept mum for a long period of 6 years. Whereas it was clearly mentioned while circulating the above seniority lists of Weaving Master in 1990 and 1994 that representation if any against the seniority list may be made within one month from circulating the seniority lists. He only represented when some Weaving Masters who were senior to him in accordance with above seniority lists were promoted to the next higher grade. It is denied that the representation of the applicant was decided/tied with the case of Shri Sita Ram Thakur, Salesman which was a different case whereas representation of the applicant was considered separately which was duly informed to the applicant. It is specifically denied that the applicant is doing the job of Assistant Technician and as such he is not entitled for any arrear of pay and other benefits as a Assistant Technician. 6 (c). That the contents of para 6 (c) of the O.A. are contrary to the record hence denied. It is further submitted that as per the seniority list circulated on 21.9.1988 the applicant placed at Serial No. 4 thereafter when seniority list of Master Craftsman was circulated on 1.9.1990, the applicant was shown at Serial No. 3. Since Shri Madan Lal, MOM was promoted as Weaving Master under orders dated 22.4.1989 he was placed at Sr. No. 34 of the Seniority lists of Weaving Masters. It is pertinent to mention here that when the tentative seniority list 3 were prepared by the respondent Corporation, objections were invited from all the aggrieved/effected officials within period of 30 days from the issuing of the letter but the applicant never represented against these orders at that relevant time. 6 (d). That the contents of para 6 (d) of the O.A. are not admitted correct. It is further submitted that the applicant made representation only on 8.7.1996 which was duly considered which is evident from letter No. HPSHHC:36(2/83)-Estt-4788 dated 13.8.96 copy of said letter is attached herewith as Annexure R-1 in which the applicant was asked to explain the reason for not doing the same in the past at the same was to be made within one month of circulating the seniority list whereas he represented after 6 years. The applicant did not care to explain the inordinate delay of 6 years. It is settled law that a person who sleeps over his legal right cannot be permitted to alter the settled seniority list as it will bread the multiplicity of the cases. By filing the representation time and again after long spell of 6 years may not extend the limitation period.” 3. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner has any grievance surviving with regard to the factual and legal aspect of the matter, it will be open to him to approach the respondents along with a copy of this judgment within one month from today, in which case the matter will be duly considered and finally decided by the respondents within another three months. 4. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. November 10, 2010. (cr) 4