IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 56 of 2005 Date of decision: 29.07.2008 Ramesh Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Per V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Tribunal’, dated 23.8.2004. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the I & PH Department of the respondent as a daily waged Beldar on 1.11.1979. Respondent No. 4 also joined on the same day and had been working continuously in different capacity and as a Meter Reader. The petitioner alleged that a seniority list of daily wagers working as Meter Reader/Clerk etc. as on 31.12.1979 was published on 22.5.1988, but his name was omitted. He made representation to the authorities which was rejected. The petitioner alleged that he had 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 joined as daily wage Beldar alongwith respondent No. 4 on the same day but respondent No. 4 was placed above him in the seniority list and was regularized as Meter Reader with effect from 1.9.1981, while he was regularized on 1.12.1982. He filed an Original Application before the learned Tribunal who directed the respondents to treat the same as representation. The said representation was rejected by the department vide order dated 11.2.1994. The petitioner filed an Original Application before the learned Tribunal praying for the following reliefs:- “(i) The order dated 11.2.1994 rejecting his representation be quashed. (ii) The seniority of applicant before respondent No. 4 be kept intact.” No reply was filed by the State Government before the learned Tribunal who after hearing the parties held as under:- “The applicant is entitled for his seniority notionally as a “Meter Reader” w.e.f. 1.9.1981 which is the date of seniority of respondent No. 4, but without any back-wages. The inter-se seniority shall be determined in accordance with the rules.” We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner were that though both the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were appointed on the same day he was given the seniority from a later date. It was also submitted that the petitioner was liable to be placed above respondent No. 4. It was not done and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 3 The fact that the petitioner and respondent No. 4 both joined on the same date i.e. 1.11.1979 as daily wage Beldar is not disputed. However, it is clear that respondent No. 4 was regularized on 1.9.1981, whereas the petitioner was regularized on 1.12.1982 and according to the assertions made by the petitioner himself, the seniority was fixed in 1988 wherein he was placed lower than respondent No. 4. But there is nothing in his pleadings that he ever challenged the said seniority list when respondent No. 4 was placed above him. He has only alleged that he is entitled to be regularized from the same date but has failed to show on what basis he was also entitled to be regularized from a prior date. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal shows that the respondent/State had failed to file reply to the Original Application filed by the respondent and, therefore, while passing the impugned order, the learned Tribunal was not having the complete facts or the case set up by the respondent. However, a perusal of the order passed shows that respondent No. 4 was regularized on 1.9.1981 but the petitioner was given the task of Meter Reader from a later date i.e. 1.12.1982 and was accordingly regularized thereafter and it is apparent that respondent No. 4 was regularized as Meter Reader earlier, he was entitled to be placed senior to the petitioner. Once he had not challenged the seniority list earlier and had been given the task of Meter Reader from a later date than respondent No. 4, he was not entitled to claim that he was senior to respondent No. 4. The learned Tribunal had considered these aspects but had given the seniority to the petitioner from the same date as 1.9.1981, though, it had observed that the petitioner was regularized on a later date i.e. on 1.12.1982. It is, therefore, clear that the applicant was not entitled for his seniority notionally with effect from 1.9.1981 4 since he was given the task from a later date, but as the said order has not been challenged as passed by the learned Tribunal giving the seniority to the petitioner from the said date as given to respondent No. 4 i.e. 1.9.1981, therefore, the order passed by the learned Tribunal has become final and has to be given effect to. The learned Tribunal had also directed the respondents to determine the seniority of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 inter-se in accordance with the rules and the said order calls for no interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, there is not merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, which is dismissed accordingly. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge July 29, 2008 ( V.K. Ahuja ), (BSS) 5