IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP Nos. 448 and 464 of 1999 Decided on: July 10, 2008. CWP No.448 of 1999 Prem Nath Sood Vs. State of H.P. and others CWP No. 464 of 1999 Mohan Lal and another Vs. State of H.P. and others Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. K.D. Sood and Mr. B.N. Gupta, Advocates in CWP No.448/1999 and Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate in CWP No.464/1999 For the Respondents: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. for respondents No. 1 and 2, in both the petitions. Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.6 in CWP No.448/1999 and for respondent No.9 in CWP No.464/1999 R.B. Misra, Judge (oral) In both the writ petitions, CWP No.448 of 1999 and CWP No.464 of 1999 the impugned order dated 8.7.1999 has been challenged. It appears that petitioners, in both the writ Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… petitions, were appointed in the Department of Excise and Taxation of the State of Himachal Pradesh in the year 1970 onwards and were promoted as Excise Inspectors in the year 1979, by a duly constituted Committee for promotion and they were kept on probation for two years and were required to pass the departmental examination within two years, if not, then within further extended period of two years. Both the writ petitioners had passed the said departmental examination, but they were confirmed at subsequent stages. It appears that the petitioners approached learned State Administrative Tribunal (in short called learned Tribunal) for giving appropriate seniority over the persons, who had passed the departmental examination subsequent to the petitioners. The Supreme Court granted verdict in favour of the petitioners (1997) 4 SCC 416 (Mohan Lal and others Vs. State of H.P. through its Secretary Excise and Taxation Department and others). 2. According to the petitioners herein, respondents No. 3 to 5, namely Agya Pal Puri, Om Prakash Sharma and Krishan Kumar Sharma, respectively, in CWP No.464 of 1999, were directly recruited/appointed as Excise and Taxation Inspectors in the year 1970. They preferred OA No.294 of 1998 before learned Administrative Tribunal for setting aside the seniority list dated March 31, 1998/April 2, 1998 in reference to the placement of respondents (No. 3 to 7 of OA No.294 of 1998 i.e respondents No. 6 to 10 of CWP No.464 of 1999) who were ex- servicemen and were given benefit of approved Military service from the date of acquiring the minimum qualification required for the post of Excise and Taxation Inspector. …3… 3. Learned Tribunal while adjudicating the above OA, kept in view the submissions of Agya Ram, Om Parkash and Krishan Kumar Sharma and the rival contentions of the respondents in the above OA and quashed the seniority list dated March 31, 1998/April 2, 1998. In the said seniority list, the persons affected are comprising of Excise and Taxation Inspectors promoted departmentally, directly recruited, as well as derived from ex-servicemen also. According to the petitioners, the impugned order has been passed behind their back without making them party and without considering their claim affecting their placement. 4. According to the petitioners, their placement in the said seniority list has been affected and consequent upon such placement in the seniority list, their subsequent chances of promotion have also been affected. According to petitioner Prem Nath Sood, he has preferred a review petition before the learned Tribunal for reviewing the order dated 8.7.1999, which is still pending adjudication by the learned Tribunal. It has been fairly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for petitioners Mohan Lal and S.K. Pundir that no review petition has been preferred by them for recalling the impugned order. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for Shri Prem Nath Sood that the said petitioner has already been superannuated from service and many of the persons in the seniority list of March 31, 1998/April 2, 1998, have also been superannuated. According to learned counsel appearing for petitioner Shri Prem Nath Sood, because of pendency of the present writ petitions, post retiral benefits of petitioner Prem …4… Nath Sood are not being disbursed to him by the State Government. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that when the seniority list dated March 31, 1998/April 2, 1998 was challenged before the learned Tribunal, it was necessary that all the persons relevant and concerned with the seniority list and likely to be affected by the outcome of the quashing of the seniority list, were to be heard before such order was passed by learned Tribunal. Undisputedly, the petitioners have not been heard. Their stand had not been considered by learned Tribunal before passing the impugned order dated 8.7.1999 because of their non-joinder as parties in the above OA. 6. In these circumstances, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, the impugned order is not legally sustainable. Therefore, it is set aside and OA No.294 of 1998, is relegated back to learned Tribunal with an indication that the same shall be heard after impleading all the concerned parties, whose names are being reflected in the seniority list dated March 31, 1998/April 2, 1998. 7. It goes without saying that the petitioners shall be allowed to be made party enabling them to put their stand by placing relevant documents on record, including the decision indicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in their favour. After taking into consideration the stand of the parties, the validity of the said seniority list challenged in OA No.294 of 1998 shall be adjudicated upon by the learned Tribunal, inter alia, the other points to be adjudicated upon by it. As a result of setting aside …5… the impugned order dated 8.7.1998 passed in OA No.294 of 1998, the consequential order dated 30.8.1999 enclosed in Annexure P-12-A in CWP No.464 of 1999 is also set aside. It is observed that even after disposal of the these writ petitions, there shall not be any bar for disbursement of the post retrial benefits to petitioner Prem Nath Sood by the authority concerned, if the same is otherwise permissible to be disbursed in the applicable provisions of law. 8. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of. (R.B. Misra), J. July 10, 2008, (ss) (Surjit Singh ), J.