IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 5194/2008 (OA 213/98) Date of Decision : April 22, 2010 Sh. Nirat Ram and others Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners : Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. For the respondents : Mr. P. M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioners in the instant case were originally appointed as J.B.T. (untrained teachers) on different dates between the years 1962 – 1965. Since the teachers were untrained, in terms of office order dated 7.6.1967 they were asked to undergo junior basic training course. This was necessitated keeping in view the problems which were identified by the State at the relevant time. At that point in time there was paucity of teachers who could impart Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 education to children in schools and hence as a matter of policy decision the State engaged the services of the petitioners as untrained teachers. Having successfully undergone their training the petitioners continued to discharge their duties at different places of posting. In the year 1990 the respondent/State issued a tentative seniority list (Annexure A-3). Final seniority list was issued subsequently in the year 1992. Importantly the seniority of the petitioners and also of the J.B.T. teachers was determined on the basis of their first appointment regardless of their having undergone training subsequently during the course of their employment. The dispute arose subsequently when the respondent issued memo dated 21.7.1997 on the basis of which the revised final seniority list was published. In terms of the said memo the criteria for determining the seniority was changed and was to be determined not from the date of the first appointment but from the date the teacher qualified the training course. This actually entailed persons junior to the petitioners being shown as senior in the already finalized seniority list. Thus the petitioners filed the petition before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, at Shimla by filing OA No. 213 of 1998 which now stands transferred to this Court and renumbered as CWP(T) No. 5194 of 2008. The question involved in the present petition is no longer res intergra. This court vide judgment dated 10.4.2009 passed in CWP(T) No. 4249 of 2008, titled as Dila Ram & others versus State 3 of H.P. & others has held that the action taken by the respondent/State is not only illegal but contrary to its stand taken in various judicial proceedings. The Court took into account the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 319 of 1997, titled as Hira Lal versus state of H.P. & another decided on 17.6.2008, wherein the letters dated 15.2.1996 and 6.5.1989 issued by the State were taken into account. In terms of these letters the State itself clarified that the services of the teachers was to be counted from the date of their first appointment. The operative portion of the judgment delivered in Dila Ram (supra) is as under: “The aforesaid decision of Division Bench of this Court, in my considered view, squarely covers the matter in issue in the present petition. The respondents have been taking different stand in different proceedings. The promotion of the private respondents No.2 to 4 have been effected on 15.2.1997 ignoring the petitioners. The seniority list was revised behind the petitioners’ back. Final seniority list could not have been revised unless and until the petitioners were heard in the matter. The same was done behind their back in a clandestine manner. Importantly, it had been done after the Director had taken a view which favoured the petitioners, vide letter dated 26.9.1990. The seniority list was revised in violation of and utter disregard of the letters dated 6.6.1990 and 26.9.1990. The Director could not have overruled the decision taken by the State. The subsequent decision of the Director is also not in consonance with the decision of the Government. There is yet another aspect of the matter. There is nothing on record from which it can be even inferred that the benefits to be accorded in terms of Annexure A-2 were confined only to such 4 of those persons who were initially appointed in the provincilised cadre of the State. For the aforesaid reasons, the respondents action in ignoring the petitioners’ claim for being promoted to the post of Centre Head Teachers is illegal. Private respondents admittedly were junior to the petitioner. However, after a long lapse of time, it would not be desirable, at this stage to quash their promotion as Centre Head Teachers. They have since retired. Interest of justice would suffice, if under the facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to also promote the petitioners as Centre Head teachers w.e.f. 15.2.1997 with all consequential benefits. Ordered accordingly. This Court has taken a similar view in CWP (T) No. 3188/2008, titled as Manmohan Prashad vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 1.4.2009. The respondents shall take action and pay the arrears within a period of four months from today. If however, the payment is not made within the said period, thereafter the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9%. “ In this background the petitioners shall also be entitled to the same relief. The respondents are directed to fix the seniority of the petitioners by taking into account their first date of appointment as untrained/trained teacher. As a consequence thereof all benefits accruing to the petitioners shall also be disbursed within a period of four months from today. It is clarified that arrears, if any, as calculated by the State as a consequence of the consideration of the petitioners appointment from the date of their first appointment shall be disbursed within the period of four months positively failing which, thereafter petitioners shall be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. 5 The present petition is allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid observations. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 22, 2010 (PK)