IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.7497 of 2008 Decided on: 11.5.2011 Uttam Chand ……….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others ……….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner. : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 to 5 and 7 to 12. None for respondent No. 6. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner was satisfied with the seniority assigned to him vide Annexure A-2, as it stood on 1.8.1973. However, the same has been changed to his detriment on 28.1.2000 vide Annexure A-19. He made a representation to the competent authority. The same was rejected vide Annexure A-20 dated 7.2.2000. The appeal preferred by him was also rejected vide Annexure A-23 dated 26.9.2000. These orders are neither speaking nor reasoned/detailed. The same were required to be passed after due application of mind, that too, after taking into consideration 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No all the pleas and grounds taken in the representation and appeal. To retain a particular seniority, may not be a vested right but before it is altered, in all fairness, person should be heard. The seniority is the basis for further promotion, release of pay scales etc. 2. Consequently, the petition is partly allowed. Annexure-19, dated 28.1.2000 read in conjunction with Annexure A-23, dated 26.9.2000 are quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the appeal Annexure A-21, dated 23.8.2000 afresh, by passing a speaking/detailed order, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties, within a period of eight weeks, after production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma) Judge. May 11, 2011. *awasthi*