IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.: 2431 of 2008 Date of decision: 19.6.2009 Naresh Kumar Sharma … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. K.C.Sankhyan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) The petitioner filed O.A. No. 266 of 1995 before the learned H.P.State Administrative Tribunal. Since the Tribunal stands abolished vide notification issued by the Central government and the case has been transferred to this Court in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Transfer of Decided and Pending Cases and Applications) Act, 2008, the matter has been taken up by this Court and now registered as CWP (T) 2431 of 2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that after completing his B.Ed. decree he was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in Government High School, Bhamla, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 Mandi on 3.9.1985. According to the petitioner, he worked to the satisfaction of the respondents but his services were terminated vide order dated 1.9.1988 on the ground that one Shri Pritam Singh, a regular hand had joined in place of the petitioner. The petitioner alleged that a large number of persons who were junior to him had been permitted to continue but the petitioner was singled out for termination of his services. The petitioner had also filed M.A. No.73 of 1996 before the learned Tribunal wherein he had prayed for interim directions and in para 4 of the said application he had given details of a large number of persons allegedly junior to him who had been retained in service even though the petitioner’s services were terminated. On 29th April, 2009, the State was directed to file a specific reply in respect of the averments made in para 4 of this application. Affidavit in compliance has been filed by Shri Sunil Kumar Chaudhary, Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh. I am constrained to observe that this affidavit is as evasive as the original reply. The petitioner in para 4 of the application had given names with complete details including the names of schools and date of appointments of the persons who he alleged were junior to him. In the reply all that has been stated is that the petitioner was appointed in District Mandi and in district Mandi no person junior to the petitioner was retained in service. Even in respect of District Mandi, the petitioner had given two names i.e. of Anjali Kumar and Shri Bakshi Ram. The deponent before this Court urges that these two persons are senior to the petitioner since they had passed their B.Ed five days earlier to the petitioner. There is no denial to the 3 fact that the petitioner was appointed on 3.9.1985 whereas Bakshi Ram was appointed on 20.11.1985. The State has not given any date of appointment of Shri Anjali Kumar. The seniority is to be reckoned from the date of appointment and not from the date of obtaining the B.Ed degree. Therefore, the stand of the respondent is perse illegal. It would also be pertinent to mention that the post of Trained Graduate Teacher falls in the State cadre. No explanation is forthcoming from the State with regard to the other TGT teachers who were working in other districts who were alleged to be junior to the petitioner. In the absence of any reply to these specific allegations, despite specific opportunity having been afforded by this Court in this behalf, adverse inference will have to be drawn against the respondents that the said persons are in fact junior to the petitioner. Since, juniors to the petitioner were retained and the petitioner was shunted out of his services, the order of termination of the petitioner (Annexure A-3) is quashed and set-aside. It has been brought to my notice that the petitioner in fact has now been regularized as Trained Graduate Teacher from October, 1997. I find that the first original application was filed in the year 1994 even though termination was made in the year 1988. Therefore, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any pay for this period but the period from the date of his termination till his regular appointment shall be counted for the purpose of seniority, fixation of pay, pension and all other benefits. The respondents are directed to ensure that these directions are complied with and 4 all necessary benefits given to the petitioner, including benefits of enhancement of pay and fixation of pay, etc. within six months from today, failing which the State shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amounts so withheld. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. 19th June, 2009 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.