IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 6518 of 2008 (OA 167/2000) Date of Decision : May 26, 2010 Sh. Laiq Ram Sharma Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. P. P. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General with Mr. P. M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Gulzar Singh Rathore, Advocate, for respondent No. 6. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Learned Counsel for the parties state that the matter in issue is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in Manmohan Parshad versus State of H.P. and others, 2009 (2) Shim. LC 176 as the facts are almost identical. As such the directions given in Manomohan Parshad (supra) also needs to be issued in the present case. 2. Petitioner was appointed as J. B. T. Teacher (untrained) w.e.f. 14.12.1960. He was selected for the basic training course on 30.6.1964. The respondent/State treated his initial date of Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 appointment i.e. 14.12.1960 for the purposes of financial benefits. However, for the purposes of determining his seniority the respondents ignored the period for which the petitioner had served as Untrained J.B.T. Teacher. The facts in Manomohan Parshad (supra) are identical. Even in the instant case the seniority list has been prepared behind the petitioner’s back. This Court, relying upon the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 319 of 1997, titled as Hira Lal versus State of H.P. and another, decided on 17.6.2008 has held as under:- “14. Considering the stand taken by the respondents themselves, the Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled for fixation of his pay w.e.f. 1.1.1986 for the purpose of Senior Scale/Selection Grade. 15. The said decision of the Division Bench, in my considered view, squarely covers the matter in issue in the present petition. The respondents have been taking different stand in different proceedings. 16. The seniority list (Annexure A-5) prepared on 25.8.1994 was revised behind the petitioner’s back. Final seniority list could not have been revised unless and until the petitioner was heard in the matter. The same was done behind his back in a clandestine manner. Importantly, the final seniority list had been prepared after the Director had taken a view which favoured the petitioner, vide letter dated 26.9.1990 (Annexure A-4). The 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 3 the Director is also not in consonance with the decision of the Government. 17. 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 of those persons who were initially appointed in the provincilised cadre of the State. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, the respondents action in ignoring the petitioner’s claim for being promoted to the post of Head Teacher is illegal. 19. 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 Head Teachers. They have since retired. 20. Interest of justice would suffice, if under the facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to also promote the petitioner as Head teacher w.e.f. 4.1.1996 with all consequential benefits. Ordered accordingly. 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%.” 3. Hence in the instant case also the seniority list issued by the respondents/State (Annexure A-7) qua the petitioner is quashed. Respondents are directed to prepare the revised seniority list and also grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner, after promoting him as a Head Teacher in accordance with law. Respondents/State shall take action and pay the arrears within a period of four months from today. If however, the payment is not 4 made within the aforesaid period, thereafter petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum. 4. With the aforesaid observations the present petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 26, 2010 (PK)