IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2055 of 2008. Decided on: 26.4.2010. __________________________________________________ Shri S.N. Nishpakshi … Petitioner. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh. … Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. K.C. Sankhyan, Advocate vice Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petitioner, Shri S.N. Nishpakshi, who retired as Deputy Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, by way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking the following reliefs: i) The seniority of the Tehsildars circulated on 24.7.1991 vide Annexure A-1 to this OA be quashed to the extent of applicant’s grievance. ii) Respondent should formulate and finalise a fresh seniority list on the basis of the principles of the length of service as laid down in the Rules and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India; a) In doing so, applicant/s date of appointment to the cadre of the Tehsildar should be deemed as 23.1.1982 i.e. the date of his 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 initial appointment/joining in compliance to the notification dated 18.1.1982 read with notification dated 4/18.10.1982 (Anns. A-3 & A-4). b) In doing so, the dates of appointments of all A class and B class Tehsildar candidates should be deemed the dates of their actual appointments to the cadre after acquiring the eligibility under the Rules and not the dates of their acceptance as A class or B class candidature. c) In doing so, all the promotee Naib Tehsildars should be given the dates of appointments/promotion from their actual joining after appointment under the Rules instead of the presumed dates prior to such actual appointment/joining. d) In doing so, this OA be referred to for hearing by a larger Bench for reconsidering the judgment dated 21.12.1989 in TA 519 of 1986 – Gopi Chand & others Vs. State of HP, if necessary. iii) After adjustment of applicant’s seniority on the principles of the length of service as claimed hereinabove, the respondent should grant all the consequential benefits of further promotion, salary and allowances etc. etc. to the applicant by reviewing his case under the Rules and by creating supernumerary post in case the reversion of any person shown senior to the applicant but now becoming junior to him is to be avoided. iv) The respondent should produce the record of the case for the perusal of this Hon’ble Tribunal. 3 2. Precisely, the claim set up by the petitioner is based on notification dated 18.1.1982, Annexure A-3, followed by another notification dated 4.10.1982, Annexure A-4. By means of the first notification dated 18.1.1982, the petitioner was promoted as Tehsildar in the scale of Rs. 825-1580 “purely on temporary basis for a period of six months till ‘A’ and ‘B’ Class-C Tehsildar candidates are declared qualified for their appointment as Tehsildars or Niab Tehsildars, who are senior to Shri S.N. Nishpakshi, becomes (sic) eligible for their promotion whichever is earlier.” 3. The aforesaid promotion of the petitioner which was initially made purely on temporary basis was further extended along with various other persons in consultation with the H.P. Public Service Commission with effect from 1.4.1982 to 31.12.1982 or till the posts were filled up on regular basis whichever was earlier. It was done vide notification dated 4.10.1982, Annexure A-4. 4. By filing and maintaining the present petition, which was initially filed as an Original Application before the H.P. Administrative Tribunal which has since been abolished, the petitioner in essence is seeking to set aside the seniority list of Tehsildars circulated on 24.7.1991 as at Annexure A-1 and seniority lists at Annexure A-13 and A-14 and thus, is seeking seniority over and above the Officer mentioned at serial No. 13, Shri Jai Sain Chauhan, who according to the petitioner was junior to him. However, I am satisfied that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief for the reasons to be enumerated hereinafter. 4 5. Firstly, the aforesaid Shri Jai Sain Chauhan, who finds mention at serial No. 13 of the seniority list, Annexure A-14, dated 1.6.1999, has not been joined as a party to the present petition. When faced with this situation, the learned vice counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that Shri Jai Sain Chauhan has since retired from service as also the petitioner and that in such situation, the petitioner would be entitled only for financial benefits. However, the submission appears to have been made simply to be rejected. The reason being that the financial benefits can enure to the petitioner only when Shri Jai Sain Chauhan is held to be junior to him. Such an exercise would essentially entail civil consequences and it being so, it cannot be done behind the back of the said Shri Jai Sain Chauhan. 6. Even on merits, the benefit of promotion was granted to the petitioner vide notifications, dated 18.1.1982, Annexure A-3 and Annexure A-4, dated 4.10.1982 ‘purely on temporary basis’. I am satisfied that on its basis, he cannot seek seniority from the date of joining i.e. 23.1.1982 as Tehsildar on the basis of notification dated 18.1.1982, Annexure A-3 followed by subsequent notification dated 4.10.1982, Annexure A-4 for the reasons that neither such promotion was on ad hoc basis nor was followed by regular promotion in accordance with the Recruitment & Promotion Rules governing the service to which the petitioner was belonging at the relevant time. 7. Even otherwise as rightly submitted by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State that the controversy relates to the year 1982. 5 The original application was filed before the H.P. Administrative Tribunal in 1992 after lapse of ten years. During the intervening period much water must have flown down from the hills of the State of Himachal Pradesh down to the oceans situate far below. For this reason as well, the claim set up by the petitioner having become stale even at the time of filing the original application before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal (since abolished) cannot be agitated being hit by delay and laches for which there is no reasonable explanation. 8. For the reasons stated above, the petition being meritless, deserves dismissal. Ordered accordingly. 9. In view of disposal of the main petition, pending CMPs, if any, shall also stand disposed of as infructuous. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. April 26, 2010. (cr)