IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No.: 5950 of 2008 Date of decision: 18.10.2010 Ashwani Kumar … 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. O.P.Sharda, Advocate. For the respondents No.1 to 3: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner had filed O.A. No.2013 of 1999 before the erstwhile H.P.State Administrative Tribunal praying for the grant of the following amongst other reliefs:- i) To appoint the applicant as Deputy Ranger w.e.f. 27.2.1979 i.e. atleast a day earlier from the date on which respondent No.4, who is junior in merit to the applicant was so appointed so as to protect and uphold the higher merit position of the applicant, as assigned to him by the Selection Committee. ii) To grant seniority to the applicant in the cadre of Deputy Rangers w.e.f. 27.2.1979 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 with all consequential benefits like seniority, pay, increments, etc. iii) To grant promotion to the applicant as Forest Ranger w.e.f. 27.4.1997 i.e. from a day earlier to the date from which respondent No.4 was promoted as Forest Ranger with all consequential benefits like seniority, pay, increment, etc. 2. On the abolition of the Tribunal this original application has been transferred to this Court in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Transfer of Decided and Pending Cases and Applications) Act, 2008 and now registered as CWP(T) No. 5950 of 2008. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that in the year 1975, seventy-five vacancies of Deputy Ranger were notified to be filled in by direct recruitment. Employees of the Forest Department were also eligible for the said post, provided they full-filled the requisite qualifications. A number of persons including the petitioner applied for the said posts. Out of 75 posts a number of posts were filled in and a panel of 31 candidates on the waiting list was drawn up. The name of the petitioner was at serial No. 5 of the said list. Shri Hukam Singh, respondent No.4, here-in was at Sr. No. 3 14 of the said list. Three other persons, namely, Pawan Kumar, Prem Chand and Ram Chand were at Sr. No. 1, 3 and 19 of the said list. Some time in the year 1994, Hukam Singh made a representation to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests that he had wrongly been shown to be ineligible as overage and also not having passed science since he had done general science and prayed that he be promoted/appointed as Deputy Forest Ranger w.e.f. 28.2.1979. This representation was accepted by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Shri Hukam Singh, Forest Guard was appointed as Deputy Ranger w.e.f. 28.2.1979 notionally and on temporary basis with immediate effect. Soon thereafter, the petitioner and three other persons mentioned here-in-above filed original applications before the learned Tribunal. It would be pertinent to mention that the aforesaid three persons had filed their original applications before the Tribunal in the year 1996-97 whereas the petitioner filed it in the year 1999. 4. Be that as it may, the fact is that the petitions filed by the aforesaid three persons were allowed and these persons were directed to be appointed as Deputy Forest Ranger w.e.f. the date on which Shri Hukam Singh had been appointed. The petitioners therein 4 were held entitled to all consequential benefits. The orders passed by the Tribunal were challenged by the State by filing CWP Nos.1427 of 2002, 1428 of 2002 and 536 of 2003 in this Court. These petitions had been dismissed. 5. This case is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the aforesaid three writ petitions. The petitioner is identically situated to the petitioners in the aforesaid cases and is therefore entitled to the same benefits. Even otherwise, when the petitioner was at Sr. No.5 of the waiting list and respondent No.4 was at Sr. No.14, the respondent No.4 could not have been offered appointment before the petitioner. 6. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent-State is directed to appoint the petitioner as Deputy Ranger with effect from the date when Hukam Singh is appointed as such. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits. The needful be done on or before 31st March, 2010. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. 18th October, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.