IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 11621/2008 Decided on:12.12.2011 _____________________________________________ Bhagat Ram son of Sh. Bhaskar Ram, Village Churag, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. at present working as Auction Recorder, Marketing Committee, Mandi, H.P. at Dhanotu, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. …Petitioner. Versus 1. The H.P. Marketing Board, Vipnan Bhawan, Khalini, Shimla-2 through its secretary. 2. Sh. Gurnam Singh, Auction Recorder, Marketing Committee, Bilaspur, H.P. 3. Sh. Pratap Singh, Auction Recorder, Marketing Committee, Chamba, H.P. 4. Hem Raj, Auction Recorder, Marketing Committee, Solan, H.P. 5. Ramesh Chand, Auction Recorder, Marketing Committee, Kangra, H.P. 6. Brij Bhushan, Auction Recorder, Marketing Committee, Kangra, H.P. 7. Gandhi Ram, Auction Recorder, Marketing Committee, Mandi, H.P. 8. Mohan Lal, Auction Recorder, Marketing Committee, Solan, H.P. 9. J.P. Kaushal, Auction Recorder, Marketing Committee, Solan, H.P. 10. Ram Singh, Auction Recorder, Marketing Committee, Una, H.P. 11. Madan Lal, Auction Recorder, Marketing Committee, Hamirpur, H.P. 12. Mohinder Singh, Auction Recorder, Marketing Committee, Solan, H.P. 13. C.C. Saini, Auction Recorder, Marketing Committee, Una, H.P. 14. Paras Ram, Auction Recorder, Marketing Committee, Shimla, H.P. 15. Manju Bala, Auction Recorder, Marketing Committee, Shimla. ….Respondents. Application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. ________________________________________________________ 2 Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. K.C. Sankyan, Advocate vice counsel for the petitioner. For the Respondents : Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No. 6,10,13,14 and 15. None for other respondents. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was appointed as Peon in the respondent- Board on 24.11.1976. He was promoted as Auction Recorder in the pay scale of ` 1200-2100 vide order dated 31.8.1990. Respondent No.1 has issued revised tentative seniority list of Auction Recorders, as it stood on 28.2.1992. Petitioner has been assigned Sr. No. 10 in the seniority list. However, in the new tentative seniority list, as it stood on 31.5.2003, petitioner has been assigned Sr. No. 23. Petitioner has assailed seniority list Annexure ‘PC’ dated 31.5.2003. 2. Mr. K.C. Sankhyan has strenuously argued that respondents No. 2 to 15 are junior to him but have been assigned seniority above him in Annexure ‘PC’. 3. The notices were issued to the respondents. Neither respondent No.1 nor private respondents have chosen to file reply. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 3 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. The petitioner even as per Annexure ‘PC’ was appointed on 26.11.1990. He has been assigned seniority at Sr. No. 10 of the seniority list, as it stood on 28.2.1992. A bare perusal of Annexure ‘PC’ makes it abundantly clear that private respondents were appointed as Auction Recorders after the petitioner. However, they have been assigned seniority above the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner has also averred that these private respondents have been recruited from the daily wagers and Class-IV employees without even calling them for interview. The petitioner has also made a representation vide Annexure ‘PD’ for the redressal of his grievance. The same has been rejected without a speaking order vide Annexure ‘PE’ dated 19.12.2003. 6. Mr. P.P. Chauhan has argued that the promotion of the petitioner was temporary. However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner had been continuously working since 26.11.1990 without any break and this period is required to be counted towards seniority. The seniority was to be drawn on the basis of length of service. Even as per Annexure ‘PC’ since the petitioner had been appointed on 26.11.1990, he could not be ranked below the private respondents No.2 to 15. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. 4 Annexure ‘PC’ and ‘PE’ dated 31.5.2003 and 19.12.2003, respectively are quashed and set aside. Respondent-Board is directed to re-do the seniority list by assigning the seniority to the petitioner from the initial date of appointment as Auction Recorder. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 12.12.2011 *awasthi*