CWP No. 3826 of 1981 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 3826 of 1981(O&M) Date of Decision: August 31 , 2009 Satvir Singh and others ...... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.C.B.Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr.P.N.Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents No.5, 7,14, 16, 18,20,22 and 24. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This writ petition has been filed for a direction to respondent No.3-bank to implement the decision (Annexure P-12) of the Additional Registrar and to fix the seniority of Supervisors and Clerks on the basis of the merit obtained by them in the common selection process. By an advertisement certain posts of Clerks/Supervisors/Cashiers/Steno-typists in the respondent No.3 - bank were advertised some time in August, 1974. During the selection process statutory rules governing the service in respondent No.3-bank were notified w.e.f. 3.3.1975. Admittedly under the said rules the post of Supervisors CWP No. 3826 of 1981 (O&M) 2 and Clerks were in equal pay scale and were interchangeable. However, in the seniority list (Annexure P8/A) the respondent-bank showed all the petitioners (Supervisors) as having been appointed on 12.7.1975 and thus made them junior to the Clerks who were shown to have been appointed on 10.7.1975. The petitioners ultimately challenged this seniority before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies claiming the same relief as has been claimed in this writ petition. This petition was decided by Annexure P-12 and a direction was given to respondent No.3 in the following terms:- “They should now fix the order of merit of the persons selected by them considering the clerks and supervisors on one cadre.” As mentioned above this petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to frame the seniority list as per the said decision. In reply filed by respondent No.3-bank these facts are not disputed, however, the seniority of clerks is sought to be justified on the ground that the said clerks were appointed directly and were given salary from 10.7.75 whereas the supervisors were given salary w.e.f. 12.8.75. In the written statement filed by the private respondents it has been averred that pursuant to the order Annexure P-12 in fact, fresh seniority list was finalised on 4.8.81 which was admittedly before the filing of the writ petition and the same was neither challenged at that time nor at any subsequent stage. The private respondents have also taken the plea that appointment letters to them were issued on 05.7.75 and they joined on 10.7.75. During the pendency of the writ petition the respondents CWP No. 3826 of 1981 (O&M) 3 circulated yet another tentative seniority list vide letter dated 3.2.95. This seniority list was made in the purported compliance of order Annexure P12 (supra) . Since the original record of selection was not available, a via media was approved whereby alternate slots were given to Clerks and Supervisors in the seniority list. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners are unexceptionable. However, they can be displaced by at least the first argument raised by learned counsel for the respondents. It is the case of learned counsel for private respondents that the seniority list dated 4.8.81 was circulated to all concerned and the omission of the petitioners to challenge the same despite the passage of almost 28 years would completely erode whatever benefits they were claiming under the order Annexure P-12. In this context on 16.4.2009 I directed learned counsel for respondent No.3 to place on record any affidavit or other material to ascertain whether the seniority list dated 4.8.81 was actually circulated or got noted down from the concerned employees. Pursuant to that affidavit dated 6.8.2009 was filed by the Managing Director of respondent No.3. A perusal thereof, however, does not reveal that the seniority list dated 4.8.81 was either actually circulated or got noted down from the concerned employees. In the circumstances it cannot be held that the omission to pose a specific challenge to the said list would result in rendering the petitioners incapable to claim relief. The second argument of learned counsel for the respondents is that the appointment letters having been issued to the private respondents being prior to those issued to the petitioners would result in the private respondents being placed prior in the seniority. It is now beyond any CWP No. 3826 of 1981 (O&M) 4 controversy that where selection of similar/equivalent/interchangeable posts is made as one process the seniority position has to be awarded as per the merit obtained and mere issuance of the date of appointment letter or even joining will not change this position. Learned counsel for the private respondents also argued that now for almost 28 years the seniority list of 4.8.81 is in operation and that all promotions etc. have been made on the basis of this seniority list. I, however, find that on the very first date when this matter had come up for motion hearing interim order was passed wherein it had been clarified that all promotions etc. which may be made during the pendency of the writ petition would be subject to the result of this writ petition. In the circumstances mere passage of time would not render this Court powerless to allow this writ petition. In the circumstances the via media whereby alternative slots were given to Clerks and Supervisors in the seniority list cannot be faulted. In the circumstances this writ petition is allowed. A direction is issued to respondent No.3 to finalise the seniority list as per the via media approved within a period of four months and to release the consequential benefits within a period of three months thereafter. It is, however, made clear that no recoveries shall be made from any person and similarly if any financial benefits accrue to the petitioners no arrears shall be granted but the said benefits would be released only in the future. This dispensation has been made on account of the fact that the impugned seniority list has been in operation for 28 years. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE August 31, 2009 sunita