IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:2205/2008 Decided on:24.3.2009 Subhash Chand and others. …Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1.No For the petitioner : Mr.Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral) The petitioners were appointed on various dates as mentioned in paragraph six of the petition. These teachers were untrained teachers at the time of their initial engagement, however, they were subsequently sent for training. These teachers were not being granted seniority from the date of their initial appointment. The State of Punjab pursuant to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 682/1977 initially decided to grant the pay of Junior Basic Trained Teachers to all the untrained Teachers from the date of their initial appointment. However, subsequently a decision was taken to grant them 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 seniority from the date of their initial appointment as well. The State Government took a conscious decision vide Annexure A-3 dated 6.6.1990 to grant seniority to the petitioners from their initial date of appointment on the analogy of Teachers serving in the State of Punjab. Consequently, vide Annexures A-4 and A-5 dated 1.11.1990 and9.1.1991 respectively; the petitioners were assigned their seniority from the date of their first appointment. The petitioners were further promoted on the basis of the seniority assigned to them vide Annexures A-4 and A-5 to the higher posts. However, vide letter dated 21.9.1993, the State Government took a decision to restrict the benefit of seniority to the provincialised cadre and not others. In sequel to office order dated 21.9.1993, a corrigendum was issued on 12.10.1993 whereby the seniority assigned to the teachers on the basis of Annexures A-4 and A-5 was disturbed. Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that the decision to assign seniority to all the petitioners has been taken by the State Government on 6.6.1990 and thereafter the seniority list was revised. He further contended that the petitioners have not been heard before the issuance of Annexures A-1 and A-2 respectively. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the issuance of Annexures A-1 and 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. What emerges from the above enumerated facts is that the petitioners were appointed against the posts of the Junior Basic Trained Teachers. They were sent for training and thereafter on the pattern of the State of Punjab, they were granted the pay for the untrained period and thereafter as per the decision of the State of Punjab, the seniority list was also revised vide Annexures A-4 and A-5. The petitioners had acquired 3 right as per Annexures A-4 and A-5. The same could not be disturbed unilaterally by the respondent-State without hearing them. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held in Rajesh Kumar and others versus Dy. CIT and others, 2007 (2) SCC 181 that when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensure, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. Their Lordships have held as under: “15. Effect of civil consequences arising out of determination of lis under a statute is stated in State of Orissa v.Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors. (1967 (2) SCR 625). It is an authority for the proposition when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. In such an event, although no express provision is laid down in this behalf compliance of principles of natural justice would be implicit. In case of denial of principles of natural justice in a statute, the same may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.” In the present case the petitioners on the basis of newly assigned seniority as per Annexures A-4 and A-5 were further promoted to the higher posts. These promotions were also put to jeopardy after the issuance of Annexures A-1 and A-2. The petitioners have neither misrepresented nor have played any fraud on the State of Himachal Pradesh for the issuance of Annexures A-4 and A-5 respectively. The valuable rights which have accrued to them could not be destroyed by the issuance of Annexures A-1 and A-2. The seniority is an important facet in the service jurisprudence. In few cadres, the promotions are effected merely on the basis of seniority. It is not disputed by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General that the petitioners were ever heard before the issuance of Annexures A-1 and A-2. There are no cogent and 4 convincing reasons forthcoming why the decision taken vide Annexure A-3 has been revised on the basis of Annexure A-1. Moreover, once the petitioners have been held entitled to the grant of pay for the untrained period, there is no reason why this period should not be counted for the purpose of seniority as well. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, the petition is allowed. The impugned Annexures A-1 and A-2 dated 21.9.1993 and 12.10.1993 respectively are quashed and set aside. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 24.3.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*