HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 41/2008 (S/B) 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary (Food and Civil Supplies) Secretariat, Dehradun 2. Regional Food Controller, Garhwal Region 74-Kanwali Road, Dehradun ………Petitioners Versus 1. Rampal Singh Negi S/o Sri Kundan Singh Negi Viparan Sahayak, Office of Senior Marketing Inspector Laksar, District Haridwar 2. Damodar Prasad S/o Sri Ramphal Godown Chowkidar Office of Senior Marketing Inspector Kotdwar, District Pauri 3. Devi Prasad S/o Sri Hirday Ram Badoni, Chowkidar Regional Food Controller, Garhwal Region 74 Kanwali Road, Dehradun 4. M.S. Rana S/o Sri Sheodan Singh, Godwan Chowkidar Office of Senior Marketing Inspector Laksar District Haridwar 5. Public Service Tribunal, Dehradun ………..Respondents JUDGMENT Coram: Hon. V.K. Gupta, C.J.. Hon. J.C.S. Rawat, J. Hon. J.C.S. Rawat, J. (Oral) Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State (Petitioners). 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the State for following reliefs: - (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.11.2007 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 4 in Claim Petition No. 120 of 2004 (Ram Pal Singh Negi Vs. State of Uttarakhnad & others). (ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iii) Award costs to the petitioner. 3. In substance, respondent no.1-Rampal Singh Negi was appointed as Godown Chaukidar in the Regional Food Controller, Agra Region in the year 1976 and thereafter he was transferred to Garhwal Region. In pursuance of his transfer order dated 07.08.1996, he joined his services in Garhwal Region. According to seniority list, he was placed below the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4. The respondent no. 1 challenged the seniority list before the Tribunal by way of a claim petition. Learned Tribunal after hearing the parties has directed that the respondent no. 1 is entitled for the seniority from the date of his initial appointment and not from the date of regularization order. It was further held by the learned Tribunal that the seniority of respondent no.1 should have been given from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 1976. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been preferred before this Court. 4. Learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State (petitioners) has contended that the respondent no. 1 was appointed in the year 1976 and his regularization was made after the regularization of respondent nos.2, 3 & 4. So he would be placed below respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4. Learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State could not demonstrate before us any such regularization orders on record. It is pertinent to mention here that the appointment letter of respondent no. 1 clearly indicates that he was appointed on regular basis against a regular post. It is also evident from the transfer order passed by the competent authority, by which the respondent no. 1 was transferred from Agra to Garhwal Region, that no such condition was placed in the transfer order that if he seeks transfer and he joins the place of positing he will lose his earlier seniority. We have gone through the entire findings recorded by the Tribunal. We do not find any fault in the approach of the learned Tribunal. 5. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed summarily and is hereby dismissed accordingly. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) Dated 27.03.2008 LSR