CWP (T) No. 2049 of 2008 2.3.2009 Present: Mr. Jagdish Thakur vice counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 3. The petitioner has assailed the seniority list as well as the promotion orders of respondents No. 4 & 5 by filing a writ petition in this Court. The Civil Writ Petition was transferred to the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal and was assigned T.A. No. 401 of 1986. The H.P. State Administrative Tribunal on 6.11.1991 directed the writ petition/application to be treated as an appeal/representation to the Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, who was directed further to afford an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard in person. In sequel to order dated 6.11.1991, the Financial Commissioner-cum- Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh passed a detailed/speaking order on 28.4.1992. The petitioner and respondents No. 4 & 5 were allocated from the State of Punjab and their service conditions were protected under the Punjab Re- organization Act. In similar circumstance, one Shri Shanti Swarup was also promoted under the “H.P. District Subordinate Services (Class III) Rules, 1962 by the Divisional Commissioner. His promotion was also assailed before the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. The promotion of Shri Shanti Swarup was upheld by the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in T.A. No. 566 of 1986. In case respondents No. 4 & 5’s service conditions were not protected under the Punjab Re-organization Act, only then the petitioner could make out the case on the basis of Rule 9 (a) of the H.P. District Subordinate Services (Class-III) Rules, 1979. Consequently, it is held that the promotions of respondents No. 4 & 5 were in accordance with law and the order dated 28.4.1992 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh is also in accordance with law. The seniority assigned to respondents No. 4 & 5 on the basis of their promotion orders is valid in law. Accordingly, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. March 2, 2009. (cr)