IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP Nos.1395 of 2005 and 735 of 2005. Date of decision: 11.03.2010. 1. CWP No.1395 of 2005. Keshav Ram & Others ….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Others ….Respondents 2. CWP No.735 of 2005. Deepak Garg & Others ….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Others ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 yes. CWP No.1395 of 2005. For the Petitioners: Mr.Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with M/s.P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General and P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate. CWP No.735 of 2005. For the Petitioners: Mr.Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with M/s.P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Mr.P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.H.K. Paul, Advocate. PER Dev Darshan Sud,J.(ORAL): Both these writ petitions arise out of the common judgment passed by the erstwhile H.P.State Administrative Tribunal. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No. 2 The grievance of the petitioners herein is that the respondent, who has been granted benefit of seniority by counting his ad-hoc service and has been placed senior to the petitioners herein. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that since their rights were being adversely affected, it was but natural that they should have been impleaded as respondents and heard in the matter. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to a similar case being CWP No.653 of 2004, titled: Joginder Singh Chauhan & Another vs. State of H.P. & Others, annexed as Annexure P-7 with CWP No.1395 of 2005. A Division Bench of this Court when faced with a situation similar to what arises in this petition had directed that the petitioners therein be impleaded as party respondents before the Tribunal and be heard in the matter before any decision is taken. Both these writ petitions are allowed and disposed of with the direction that the writ petition shall be heard by Hon’ble Single Judge. The respondent in these writ petitions, Shri Santosh Kumar, shall implead the present petitioners in the Original Application which shall be decided afresh in accordance with law. We need not observe that the newly impleaded respondents shall be given an opportunity to oppose the petition on such grounds as are available to them in law. Both these petitions are disposed of. Judgment passed by learned Tribunal 3 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. All interim orders are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of. (Dev Darshan Sud) Judge. March 11, 2010 (Kuldip Singh) (aks) Judge.