IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 5319 of 2010. Decided on: October 25, 2010. Padma Nand …..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P.& Ors. ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.Bawa, AG, with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “1) That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued and directing the respondents to grant the pay scales as per second schedule revised w.e.f. 1.1.1996 for junior technicians of various categories in the ratio of 20%, 30% and 50%. 2) That the respondent may kindly be directed to fix the salary as per the second schedule revised w.e.f 1.1.1996.” 2. Learned Deputy Advocate General, on instruction submits that the seniority of the Technicians is fixed on the basis of the age of the Technicians at the time of regularization. Later, it has been found that the very premises of such fixation is wrong and the incumbent concerned should be entitled to seniority on the basis of date of joining duty. Since such an apparent mistake was realized later, the respondents proposed to revise the seniority and in that process steps have already been taken. It is submitted that the seniority has always to be determined, based on the date of joining the department as Technician and not on the basis of age at the time of regularization. We find force in the above submission. Seniority in service would depend on the date of joining the service/date of advice to 2 join service. That is a well settled principle of law. If any mistake has been committed in finalizing the seniority that finalization is not on the well settled principle, as above. It is for the respondents to take appropriate action to re-draw the seniority as per law. 3. In the above circumstances, since the petitioner has sought for writ of mandamus, in case the petitioner is still advised to pursue his grievance in the matter, he may pursue the same before the first respondent, within a period of two weeks from today, in which case, the first respondent will duly consider the same, with notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon within another two months. 4. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. October 25, 2010. ( Justice Kuldip Singh ), (karan/vs) Judge.