IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 8957 of 2008 Decided on 22.12.2010 Dilbag Singh ..…Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …… Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Himmat Negi, Advocate, vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. V.K.Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 A and B :- “A. Impugned act of the respondents as stated above, may very kindly be quashed and set aside with directions to the respondents to place the applicant at the appropriate place in the seniority list by showing his name at the place where persons who born on the cadre of TGTs on 11.12.1972 have been shown i.e. at serial No. 4388 in Annexure A-2 with all consequential benefits of pay, promotion, seniority, arrears etc. etc. in favour of the applicant and against the respondents. B. Direction may be issued to the respondents to correct the seniority, if any, issued after annexure A- 2 and further directions may be issued to the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes. 2 respondents to consider the case of the applicant for further promotion taking as if applicant’s name having mentioned at serial No. 4388 in Annexure A- 2 in the interest of law and justice.” 2. In reply filed on behalf of the respondents the following stand has been taken vide paras 3 and 5:- “3. That the applicant is not entitled to prefer and maintain the present original application as the seniority number of the applicant ahs been shown correctly at serial No. 4745 in the seniority list of Trained Graduate Teachers. It is submitted that the applicant was appointed as TGT (regular) on the basis of the taking over of the school by the Govt. vide letter No. 4-7/72-Edu.Estt.II dated 01.11.1983 (in fact 01.11.1973) and the seniority number was granted to such candidates on the basis of the taking over of the school. The detailed submission are being made here-in-below in the succeeding paras. 5. That the contents of this para are wrong, hence, denied. It is submitted that the seniority list was finalized on 07.11.1983 after entertaining the objections in the tentative list which was supplied by the Education Department on 19.01.1975. The applicant in the instant case approached this Hon’ble Tribunal in the year 2002 i.e after the expiry of more than 20 years. Therefore, the present original application is barred by the limitation prescribed under Section 21 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.” 3. Rejoinder refuting the above stand and reiterating the averments set up in the petition has been filed. 4. A perusal of Office Order dated 01.11.1973, Annexure A-1 would go to show that services of the petitioner as 3 Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) were taken over by the respondent-department with effect from 11.12.1972. However, on perusal of final seniority list of Trained Graduate Teachers as on 01.07.1972 to 12.12.1973, Annexure A-2, it is manifest that Trained Graduate Teachers mentioned at Sr. Nos. 4389 to 4392, namely, Suman Lata, Krishan Kumar Shandilya, Parvesh Kumari Kapoor and Shyam Lal Sharma and 4741 Mathura Ram, whose date of appointment as TGT has been shown as 2.3.1973, 22.1.1973, 1.3.1973, 1.3.1973 and 25.9.1973, respectively, i.e later in point of time to that of the petitioner who figures at Sr. No. 4745 and whose date of appointment as TGT is mentioned as 11.12.1972, heave been shown senior to the petitioner, however, on what basis, it has not been clarified in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents. 5. The records reveal that the petitioner had submitted representation dated 11.9.2001 to the Director, Secondary Education, Himachal Pradesh, but, it appears that neither the same was considered nor any decision taken thereon till date. 6. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 that subject to the petitioner making representation along with copy of this judgment within one month from today, the said respondent shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter in accordance with law and justice and taking into consideration the observations made hereinabove in this judgment, within next two months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if 4 so desired. Needless to say that consequential benefits, if any, shall follow decision on the representation. 7. The petition, so also pending CMP(s), if any stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 22nd December, 20.10. Lsp*