IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 8296 of 2008 Decided on : 4.11.2011 ________________________________________________ Jagat Ram Verma … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents. ___________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General, with Mr. Anil Sharma, Dy. Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (oral). The petitioner, who at the time of filing of the petition was working as Junior Assistant, had initially joined the respondent-department as Frash on 27.7.1987. Similarly, respondents No. 2 to 4, who at the relevant time were also working as Junior Assistants, had also joined the respondent-department as Sweeper, Mali and Chowkidar, respectively, on the same date, that is, 27.7.1987. 2. Admittedly, there exist ten different categories of Class-IV employees in the respondent- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 department, that is, Jamadar, Gestetnor Operator, Daftry, Library Attendant, Record Lifter, Peon, Frash, Chowkidar, Sweeper and Mali, out of which the posts of Frash, Chowkidar, Sweeper, Mali and Dak Messenger are filled up by direct recruitment and the remaining five categories are to be filled up 100% by promotion. The promotional quota for the categories of Frash, Sweeper, Chowkidar and Mali is to the extent of 55%, 20%, 20% and 5%, respectively. 3. As per the provisions of Recruitment and Promotion Rules (in short ‘R & P Rules’) for the post of Clerks, 10% are required to be filled up by promotion from amongst Class-IV employees possessing minimum qualifying service and requisite qualification. 4. The record reveals that the petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3, who had initially joined the respondent-department as Frash, Sweeper and Mali, respectively, were later on promoted as Peon on 28.1.1991. Similarly, respondent No.4, whose initial appointment was as Chowkidar, was also promoted as Peon on 25.10.1991. It appears that since the petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 4 initially belonged to different categories of Frash, Sweeper, Chowkidar and Mali, respectively, they were promoted as Peon against their respective quota of 55%, 20%, 20% and 5%, respectively. 3 5. A perusal of seniority list of Peons circulated vide memorandum dated 2.11.1993, Annexure A-2, would go to show that whereas name of the petitioner finds mention at Sr. No. 198, respondents No. 2 to 4 figure at Sr. Nos. 203, 205 and 230, respectively, meaning thereby that as Peon the petitioner was senior to respondents No. 2 to 4. 6. Thereafter at the time of further promotion of the petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 4 from the post of Peon to that of Clerk in terms of memorandum Annexure R-1 submitted to the DPC, their seniority in the promotional cadre of Clerks was reckoned on the basis of the date of their initial appointment as Frash, Sweeper, Chowkidar and Mali, respectively, which as already noticed was the same, that is, 27.7.1987/their date of birth instead of their seniority as Peon, as reflected in Annexure A-1. Here also, it shall be pertinent to observe that on a perusal of the respective dates of birth of the petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 4, as reflected in the seniority list Annexure A-1, it is apparent that no doubt respondents No. 2 and 3 are senior in age to the petitioner, respondent No.4 is in fact younger in age to the petitioner. It being so, in any case, even if the date of appointment of the petitioner and respondent No.4 was the same, the fact remains that the latter was junior in age 4 to the former and thus could not have been assigned seniority over and above the petitioner even on the basis of date of birth. 7. Once the petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 4 were promoted as Peon from their respective categories against the respective quota, as noticed hereinabove, I have no doubt in my mind that they would loose their seniority, if any, in the entry level cadre, may be on the basis of date of entry in the service, date of birth or order of merit assigned by the recruitment committee. This inference is further fortified from the fact that the petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 4 had initially entered the employment of respondent-department in different categories as Frash, Sweeper, Mali and Chowkidar, respectively and were thereafter promoted as Peon against their respective quota of 55%, 20%, 20% and 5%, respectively. It appears that the petitioner was assigned higher seniority as Peon in the seniority list Annexure A-1 as compared to respondents No. 2 to 4 as the category of Frash to which he initially belonged was having larger share in the promotional quota for the post of Peon to the extent of 55%, as compared to the quota available to respondents No. 2 to 4, which was 20%, 20% and 5%, respectively. In such situation, there was no rationale for ignoring the seniority of the petitioner for the post of 5 Peon at the time of further promotion to the post of Clerk vis-à-vis respondents No. 2 to 4, who were in fact junior to him as Peon, as per seniority list Annexure A-1. 8. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is held to be senior as Clerk to respondents No. 2 to 4 along with consequential benefits, if any. Consequently, the impugned decisions at Annexures A-11, dated 27.4.2001 and A-16, dated 6.11.2001, rejecting the representations of the petitioner for restoring his seniority above respondents No. 2 to 4 in the cadre of Clerks, are quashed. Let follow up action be taken within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner to respondent No.1. 9. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any, in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. November 4, 2011. (Lsp)