IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 2830 of 2008. Decided on: 30.11.2010. __________________________________________________________ Om Parkash Kapret. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondents No.3 to 75. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral): Petitioner is seeking seniority over the private respondents, which has been assigned to them in the year 1969. It is settled law that the matters with regard to seniority must be pursued within a reasonable period, i.e. six months to one year. It is also well settled that the settled things should not be unsettled. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the petition is not barred by delay since his client has made representation. It is also settled by now that frequent representations will not provide fresh cause of action. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 3. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in H.S. Vankani & Ors. versus State of Gujrat & Ors., AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1714 have held as under: “25. Seniority is a civil right which has an important and vital role to play in one’s service career. Future promotion of a Government servant depends either on strict seniority or on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority etc. Seniority once settled is decisive in the upward march in one’s chosen work or calling and gives certainty and assurance and boosts the morale to do quality work. It instills confidence, spreads harmony and commands respect among colleagues which is a paramount factor for good and sound administration. If the settled seniority at the instance of one’s junior in service is unsettled, it may generate bitterness, resentment, hostility among the Government servants and the enthusiasm to do quality work might be lost. Such a situation may drive the parties to approach the administration for resolution of that acrimonious and poignant situation, which may consume lot of time and energy. The decision either way may drive the parties to litigative wilderness to the advantage of legal professionals both private and Government, driving the parties to acute penury. It is well known that salary they earn, may not match the litigation expenses and professional fees and may at times drive the parties to other sources of money making, including corruption. Public money is also being spent by the Government to defend their otherwise untenable stand. Further it also consumes lot of judicial time from the lowest court to the highest resulting in constant bitterness among parties at the cost of sound administration affecting public interest. Courts are repeating the ratio that the seniority once settled, shall not be un-settled but the men in power often violate that ratio for extraneous reasons, which, at times calls for departmental action. Legal principles have been reiterated by this Court in Union of India and Another V. S.K. Goel and Others (2007) 14 SCC 641: (AIR 2007 SC 1199: 2007 AIR - 3 - SCW 1235), T.R. Kapoor V. State of Haryana (1989) 4 SCC V. State of Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 604: (AIR 2003 SC 2000:2003 AIR SCW 1508) In view of the settled law the decisions cited by the appellants in G.P. Doval’s case, (AIR 1984 SC 1527) (Supra), Prabhakar and others case, (AIR 1976 SC 1093) G. Deendayalam, R.S. Ajara are not applicable to the facts of the case.” 3. Consequently, in view of above discussion, the petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. November 30, 2010. (sck).