IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2604/2008 Reserved on:4.8.2009 Decided on:9.9. 2009 ________________________________________________ Rattan Chand. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. J.P. Upadhya, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajindger Dogra, Addl. A.G for respondent No.1 and 2. None for respondents No. 3 to 5. ________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge . Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as District Board Vaccinator on 8.10.1952. He was appointed to the post of Clerk in the year 1956. He was appointed as Head Clerk initially for a period of six months on 4.9.1962. He was regularized vide order dated 28.1.1967. The State 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Government had taken a conscious decision vide Annexure A-23 dated 14.3.1978 whereby the services of employees of the Panchayat Samitis were taken over and placed at the disposal of the Rural Integrated Development Department. The State had also taken a decision vide order dated 26.9.1981 to assign the seniority to the incumbents who were absorbed only with effect from 14.3.1978, however, the services rendered by these persons were to be counted towards pension and gratuity only. The respondent-State issued tentative seniority list in the year 1982 vide Annexure A-4. The petitioner was ranked below the private respondents. He made representation on 2.2.1982. Thereafter tentative seniority list of the Head Clerks was issued in the month of January, 1990 as it stood on 1.1.1987. He made representation against the same on 3.2.1990. The tentative seniority list was also published on 10.1.1991 as it stood on 31.12.1990. He made representation against the same on 1.2.1991. Respondents No.4 and 5 were promoted to the post of Block Development Officer on 18.7.1991. Similarly, respondent No.3 was also promoted to the post vide separate order dated 18.7.1991. The petitioner assailed the promotions of the private respondents by making representation on 13.8.1991. He approached the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 1673/1991. The same was disposed of on 23.6.2000. It transpired at the time of the disposal of the Original Application that during the pendency of the petition, the seniority list was finalized on 15.1.1992. The copy of the same was supplied to the petitioner on 11.8.2000. The petitioner ranks at Sr. No.14 in the seniority list and respondents No. 3 to 5 at Sr. No. 5, 6 and 10, respectively. 3 Mr. J.P. Upadhaya, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner’s services rendered with effect from 4.9.1962 were required to be taken into consideration towards seniority and for further promotion to the post of Block Development Officer. He further contended that his client was appointed before respondents No. 3 to 5 as Head Clerk. He then contended that the seniority list was required to be corrected and his client should be ranked above respondent No.3 to 5 and thereafter should be promoted to the post of Block Development Officer. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that as per the decision taken by the State Government Annexure A-24, the period rendered by the employees in Panchayat Samitis was to be counted towards pension and gratuity alone. He lastly contended that respondents No. 3 and 4 were permanent employees of the Department and respondent No. 5 was regularized before the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. The petitioner was appointed as Head Clerk initially for a period of six months on 4.9.1962. He was regularized on the basis of the recommendations made by the Committee on 28.1.1967. The State Government has taken a decision on 14.3.1978 to absorb the services of the petitioner and similarly situate persons in the Rural Integrated Development Department. The decision has been taken by the State Government to count the seniority of these incumbents with effect from 14.3.1978 alone. However, the services rendered by them in the Panchayat Samitis were to be counted for the purpose of Pension and 4 Gratuity. The petitioner has not assailed these conditions while filing the present petition and in the earlier OA No. 1673/1991. In fact, the petitioner has also not assailed the final seniority list of the Head Clerks dated 15.1.1992. He has only prayed that he should be ranked above respondents No. 3 to 5. Respondent No. 3 was appointed on regular basis as Head Clerk on 31.1.1963. Respondent No. 4 was appointed on 23.12.1964. Respondent No. 5 has been regularized with effect from 6.4.1966 on the basis of the recommendations made by the District Selection Committee. The petitioner has been regularized with effect from 28.1.1967. A bare perusal of para 130 of F.R.S.R. reveals that a person transferred to Government service from a Local Fund which is not administered by Government will be treated as joining a first post under Government and their previous service will not count as duty performed. However, the Government can allow the previous service in such cases to count as duty performed on such terms as it thinks fit. In the present case, the services of the petitioner and similarly situate persons have been directed to be counted for the purpose of pension and gratuity alone. The seniority has been counted with effect from 14.3.1978. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. 9.9. 2009. *awasthi*