IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2600 of 2008. Decided on: 9.3.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Bhoop Ram and another. … Petitioner. Versus H.P. State Electricity Board and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. For Respondents No. 4 to 6 : Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioners appeared in the interview for the post of T-Mates on 29.8.1983. The appointment letters were issued to the petitioners pursuant to which they joined their duties on 24.10.1983. The respondent-Board had issued final seniority list of T-Mates as it stood on 31.12.1986 (Annexure P-3). The petitioners figured at Sr. Nos. 27 and 29 respectively. The respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 were placed at Sr. Nos. 31, 33 and 38 respectively. The respondent-Board again circulated final seniority list of T-Mates vide Annexure P-4 as it stood on 31.12.1989. The petitioners were shown at Sr. Nos. 25 and 27 respectively and respondents No. 4 to 6 figured at Sr. Nos. 29, 31 and 36. Thereafter, the respondent-Board circulated two provisional 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 seniority lists vide Annexures P-6 and P-7 respectively. The petitioners ranked higher vis-à-vis respondents in these two lists. The respondent-Board circulated final seniority list on 19.7.1995. In this list, the petitioners were shown at Sr. Nos. 4 & 5 and the respondents No. 4 to 6 were shown at Sr. No. 1 to 3. The petitioners have assailed this seniority list. Mr. Ashok Sharma has strenuously argued that the petitioners were appointed with effect from 24.10.1983 and not from 7.6.1984 and 12.6.1984 respectively. His further contention is that the petitioners ranked senior to respondents No. 4 to 6 in the final seniority lists as they stood in the category of T-Mates on 31.12.1986 and 31.12.1989. Ms. Anjula Khajuria has supported the seniority list dated 19.7.1995 whereby the petitioners ranked junior to respondents No. 4 to 6. Mr. D.P. Gupta submits that the seniority was to be reckoned from 7.6.1984 and 12.6.1984 and not with effect from 24.10.1983 in the case of the petitioners. In other words, his submission is that the services of the petitioners with effect from 24.10.1983 onwards till 7.6.1984 and 12.6.1984 could not be counted and have rightly been ignored by circulating the final seniority list on 19.7.1995. He lastly contended that his clients are senior to the petitioners and his clients have made representations against the provisional seniority list issued on 10.4.1995. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings and the documents annexed with the writ petition. The petitioners were interviewed on 29.8.1983. The appointment letters were issued to them on 22.10.1983. They 3 joined their duties on 24.10.1983. It is not in dispute that the petitioners ranked senior vis-à-vis respondents No. 4 to 6 in the final seniority list issued vide Annexures P-3 and P-4. The same position was re-iterated in the provisional seniority list, Annexures P-6 and P-7. It was only when the final seniority list was issued vide Annexure P-8, respondents No. 4 to 6 were ranked senior to the petitioners. It appears from the stand of the respondent-Board that the services of the petitioners have been counted with effect from 7.6.1984 and 12.6.1984 and not with effect from 24.10.1983. The petitioners have joined their duties on 24.10.1983. Their appointments though were ad hoc but could not be ignored for the purpose of seniority. The petitioners have been assigned seniority by considering their appointment with effect from 24.10.1983 as reflected in the seniority lists Annexures P-3 to P-7. Admittedly, respondents No. 4 to 6 have not filed any objection against the seniority list issued vide Annexures P-3, P-4 and P-6. It is only in the year 1995 that the respondents No. 4 to 6 have filed objections against the seniority list issued provisionally. It was only on the basis of the representation, Annexure R-5 that the seniority list has been altered vide Annexure P-8 dated 19.7.1995. The respondent- Board could not unsettle the settled things. The petitioners have enjoyed higher rank in the seniority list from 1986 till the provisional seniority list, Annexure P-7 was issued as it stood on 1.1.1995. The apparent reason of down grading the petitioners in the seniority list, Annexure P-8 is that the petitioners’ services with effect from 24.10.1983 have been ignored. Their services have been counted from 7.6.1984 and 12.6.1984 respectively. The 4 petitioners were regularized after their initial appointment on ad hoc basis. It is settled law by now that ad hoc service followed by regularization is to be counted for the purpose of seniority. Ms. Anjula Khajuria has also submitted that their was re-organization in the department and the Sub Division where the petitioners were working, namely Maintenance Sub Division, Bharari was transferred along with staff to City Electricity Division, Shimla with effect from 31.12.1991. According to her, the petitioners came under the control of City Electricity Division, HP SEB, Shimla with effect from 31.12.1991. It is true that some re- organization has taken place. However, fact of the matter is that even after the change of Sub Division, duties and places of posting of the petitioners remained the same. The only effect was that the Sub Division in which the petitioners were working came under the administrative control of City Electricity Division, HP SEB, Shimla. It would be pertinent to take note of provisional seniority list, Annexures P-6 and P-7 which were issued after 1991. The petitioners were ranked senior to respondents No. 4 to 6 in these lists also. The decision of the respondent-Board to unsettle the seniority list which had attained finality as far back as on 31.12.1986 and 31.12.1989 is arbitrary. The same is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The final seniority list dated 19.7.1995, Annexure P-8 is quashed to the extent whereby respondents No. 4 to 6 ranked senior to the petitioners. The respondents are directed to re-do the seniority list of T-Mates and to rank the petitioners above respondents No. 4 to 6 for all intents and purposes. This exercise be undertaken by the 5 respondent-Board within a period of six weeks from today. The petitioners will be held entitled to all consequential benefits on the basis of reframed seniority list. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. March 9, 2009. (cr)