IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMP (T) No.5266/2008 Reserved on: 16.6.2010 Decided on: 7.7.2010. Bali Ram. ...Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and another. ... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioner was engaged as daily wage Chowkidar on 24.11.1988. He was regularized on 11.4.1989. He submitted application for considering him against the post of Clerk on 6.5.1991. He was appointed as Clerk on 28.6.1991. He appeared in the typing test on 29.5.1992 and declared successful on 1.6.1992. However, petitioner was reverted vide office order dated 2.3.1993. He assailed order of reversion dated 2.3.1993 by way of civil writ petition No. 208/1993. Order dated 2.3.1993 was stayed by this Court on 15.3.1993. Respondent-Board filed reply. Case of the respondent- Board in the reply was that only 719 posts were filled up and the quota of category to which petitioner belongs was 15% and total 1 . Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 vacancies, which fell in the share of the category of petitioner were 143. 121 posts were filled up and 22 remaining posts were kept reserved to consider the cases of left out candidates. The writ petition was dismissed on the basis of reply filed by the respondents- Board on 21.10.1993. The petitioner came to know that the respondent-Board has taken a contradictory stand in OA No. 139/1996 filed by Dharam Dutt seeking benefit of ad hoc service with effect from 14.8.1990. It came in the reply that 883 posts of Clerks were filled up and according to 15% quota, 156 posts fell in the share of the petitioner’s category. Petitioner made representation on 1.1.1997 followed by reminder dated 5.5.1997 for the redressal of his grievance. He also served legal notice on the Board on 21.7.1997. 2. Mr. Ajay Sharma has strenuously argued that respondent-Board has not placed on record true facts at time of disposal of CWP No.208/1993. According to him, 883 posts were filled up of the category of Clerks/Meter Readers etc. and in these circumstances; share of the category of Class-IV employees came to be 156 posts. He also contended that as per the seniority list of Junior Assistants/Senior Clerks/Clerks as it stood on 1.1.2000, 1010 posts were filled upto 1992. 3. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo has strenuously argued that only 719 posts were filled up before 14.8.1990 and since the persons senior to the petitioner were left, petitioner was reverted to lower post. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. What emerges from the pleadings is that respondent- Board has taken a specific stand in the reply to civil writ petition No. 208/1993 that only 719 posts were filled upto 14.8.1990. Total 3 vacancies, which fell to the share of petitioner’s category, i.e. 15% were 143. 121 posts were filled up and remaining posts, as noticed above, were kept vacant to consider left out incumbents. However, in the reply filed in OA No. 139/1996, respondent-Board has taken a diametrically opposite stand wherein it is stated that 883 posts were filled up and 156 posts were available for category of Class-IV employees. Petitioner has also placed on record the seniority list as it stood on 1.1.2000. A bare perusal of the same reveals that 1010 posts were filled upto 1992. Respondent-Board ought to have taken consistent stand instead of taking contradictory stand in the subsequent original application No. 139/1996. Now, three versions are available on record. Firstly, 719 posts were filled up, as per the reply in CWP No. 208/1993, secondly, according to the reply filed in OA No. 139/1996, 883 posts were filled up and thirdly, according to the seniority list, as it stood on 1.1.2000, 1010 posts were filled up. It is evident that respondent-Board has not placed true facts before the Court. If 883 posts were filled up, as per stand taken in OA No. 139/1996, the share of the petitioner’s category was 156 and even if five persons senior to the petitioner were to be promoted, vacancies were available and in these circumstances petitioner could not be reverted. Petitioner has been reverted primarily on the pretext that persons senior to him made representations, which were accepted to and the petitioner was reverted. The representations made by the petitioner have not been heeded to by the respondent-Board. Once the representations had been made on the basis of changed circumstances, the same ought to have been considered either way by the respondent-Board. It has come in the reply that petitioner was regularized as Clerk with effect from 4.1.1996. The period in issue now required to be decided is with effect from 2.3.1993 till 4.1.1996. 4 6. It is true that once a dispute has been adjudicated upon in accordance with law, it must reach its logical conclusion. However, it is equally true that fresh petition on fresh cause of action can be filed after the adjudication of the earlier dispute. In the instant case, earlier petition has been dismissed on the basis of the reply filed by the respodnent. Petitioner had no knowledge about the original application filed by Dharam Dutt. In these circumstances, present petition has been adjudicated on merits, particularly, when the petitioner had made representation bringing to the notice the contradictory stand taken by the Board in Dharam Dutt case and has served a legal notice. 7. Respondent-Board was directed to file supplementary affidavit to explain the variance in two affidavits filed in CWP No. 208/1993 and in the OA No. 139/1996 vide order dated 7.4.2009. The respondent-Board has filed the supplementary affidavit. It also reveals that 883 posts were filled up, as per the reply filed in OA No. 139/1996. In view of this, vacancies were available when the petitioner was reverted on 2.3.1993. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in view of the observations made hereinabove from the due date. Needful be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma) Judge. 7.7. 2010. *awasthi*