IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 14077/2008 Decided on:9.3.2011 _____________________________________________ Prem Nath Sood. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel and Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocates. For the Respondents: None for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the year 1971 in the respondent-Department. He was promoted to the post of Assistant in the year 1976. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Excise and Taxation Inspector on 4.7.1979. Petitioner stood promoted as Taxation Officer on 16.5.1997. Respondent No.3 was appointed as Excise and Taxation 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 Inspector on 5.7.1979. He was recruited against the post reserved for Scheduled Caste category, though he was also an ex-serviceman. In the seniority list issued on 12.9.1984, petitioner ranked at Sr. No. 162 and respondent No.3 ranked at Sr. No. 189. However, in the final seniority list, petitioner was reflected at Sr. No.83 and respondent No.2 at Sr. No. 82, vide letter dated 31.1.1992. Petitioner made several representations bringing to the notice of the respondent-State that since the petitioner has been appointed against the post reserved for Scheduled Caste category, he could not be granted benefits under the provisions of the Demobilized Armed Forces Personal (Reservation of Vacancies in Himachal Pradesh State Non Technical Services) Rules, 1972 for the purpose of pay fixation and seniority. He has relied upon letter dated 21.7.1992 as well as communication dated 31.12.2001. Respondent-Department revised his seniority on 31.3.1998/2.4.1998 whereby petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 25 and respondent No. 3 was placed at Sr. No. 26. This seniority list was assailed by the aggrieved persons by filing O.A. No. 998/1998 and O.A. No. (D) 294/1998. The learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal quashed the seniority list. Petitioner and similarly situate persons assailed the judgment of the learned Tribunal by way of CWPs 3 No. 213/1999, 289/1999, 223/1989, 464/1999 and 448/1999. The Division Bench of this Court on 10.7.2008 decided CWPs No. 448 and 464 of 2009 and quashed the impugned order of the learned Tribunal dated 9.7.1998. The Division Bench has also observed that even after the disposal of the writ petitions, there shall not be any bar for disbursement of the post retiral benefits to petitioner by the authority concerned, if the same was otherwise permissible to be disbursed in accordance with law. 2. What emerges from the observations made hereinabove is that respondent-State has already revised the seniority of the petitioner by ranking him at Sr. No.3 on 31.3.1998. Thereafter, respondent-State has issued letter dated 31.12.2001 (Annexure A-10), whereby it was ordered that the petitioner be shown above respondent No.3 in case that did not violate any orders of the Administrative Tribunal/High Court. Thereafter, petitioner also made representation for the implementation of the seniority list issued on 31.3.1998/2.4.1998. This representation was rejected by the Principal Secretary (Excise and Taxation) on 25.2.2006 by making observations that petitioner ranked above respondent No.3 in the seniority list issued on 31.3.1998/2.4.1998. 4 3. Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel submitted at the Bar that after the judgment passed by this Court on 10.7.2008 whereby the orders passed in O.A. No. 998/1998 and O.A. No. (D) 294/1998 were set aside; to the best of his knowledge, the original applications have not been pursued further. This fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-State to give effect to the seniority list issued on 31.3.1998/2.4.1998 read with letter dated 31.12.2001, including in the matter of promotion, if not already done. However, the actual monetary benefits will be limited to the period from the date of filing the original application, namely, 27.9.2006. The needful, as above, shall be done within ten weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 9.3.2011 *awasthi*