IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2463 of 2008. Decided on: 6.3.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Daman Chand … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). The respondent No.3 has made a representation to the Director of Land Records for granting him proper place in the final seniority list issued on 1.4.1986. The representation made by respondent No.3 was rejected by the Director of Land Records on 19.1.1989. He preferred an appeal before the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Revenue). The Financial Commissioner- cum-Secretary (Revenue) allowed the appeal on 12.8.1994. The petitioner made representation against order dated 12.8.1994 to the Financial Commissioner-cum- Secretary (Revenue) on 15.11.1994. The representation made by the petitioner has not been decided till date by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Revenue). It is apparent from order dated 12.8.1994 that the petitioner was not heard before its issuance. The petitioner has been visited with civil consequences 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 after benefit of seniority has been granted to respondent No.3 w.e.f. 1.11.1971. The petitioner ought to have been heard by the Financial Commissioner-cum- Secretary (Revenue) before taking any action which has adversely affected him. The effect of issuance of order dated 12.8.1994 is that the petitioner will rank junior to respondent No.3 without hearing him. The respondents have further perpetuated the illegality by not considering and deciding the representation made by the petitioner against order dated 12.8.1994 on 15.11.1994. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 12.8.1994 (Annexure A-10) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to hear and decide the entire issue afresh after hearing the parties including respondent No.3 within a period of eight weeks from today. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. March 6, 2009. (cr)