IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 1213 of 2008. Decided on 21.3.2011 Ranjinder Kumar ..…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …. Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent No.1 and 2 : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent No.3 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (i) and (ii) : “ (i) Quash and set-aside the illegal final seniority list issued by the respondents as Annexure A-2. (ii) After quashing and setting aside Annexure A-2 the respondents may be directed to redrawn fresh seniority list in accordance with R & P Rules and affording ample/reasonable opportunity to the applicant.” 2. In reply, respondents No.1 and 2 have taken the following stand by way of preliminary objections and paras 3 and 6 (1) on merits : 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 “ It is submitted that the tentative seniority list of Patwari appointed up to 31.3.2004 in Hamirpur District was prepared and circulated amongst all the Patwaris including petitioner through concerned Tehsildar vide this office letter No. DRO/SK/Esstt-13/2004-05-5755-64 dated 18.10.2004 for information & inviting objection, if any. The respondent No.3 presented an application to the replying respondent regarding his wrong placement in the above seniority and the replying respondent on dated 7.4.2008 decided the same and resultantly respondent No.3 become senior to the petitioner. The respondent No.3 was later on promoted as Kanungo during June 2008 in view of above decision. Feeling aggrieved by assignment of appropriate seniority to the respondent No.3 at Sr. No.33 and subsequently his promotion to the post of Kanungo the present petitioner filed the present CWP before the Hon’ ble Court for the redressal of his grievances on similar grounds instead of exhausting all the remedies/opportunity available to him. 3. The contents of para are admitted to the extent that the tentative seniority of Patwaris was drawn and circulated amongst them through their respective Tehsildars on dated 18.10.2004 and objections were invited, if any. After considering all the representations & objections, the final seniority was drawn and again circulated on 28.5.2008. The 3 respondent No.3 was assigned seniority on the basis of his claim through a representation and was subsequently promoted to the post of Kanungo. The petitioner however did not represent against the tentative seniority at any point of time. 6 (1). The contents of para of the petition are admitted to the extent that the petitioner and respondent No.3 were appointed as Patwari on 10.1.1979 by different orders of appointment. The respondent No.3 was assigned seniority on the basis of the orders passed by the replying respondent on 7.4.2008 on the representation submitted by him against the tentative seniority list circulated by the office in the year 2004. The petitioner has not represented against the tentative seniority list dated 18.10.2004 at any point of time and has approached this Hon’ ble Court without exhausting all the alternatives available to him.” 3. Respondent No.3 has not filed any reply. However learned counsel for respondent No.3 prays for and granted permission to adopt the reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. 4. Rejoinder refuting the above stand on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 and reiterating the averments set up in the petition, has been filed. 5. The petitioner and respondent No.3 were working as Patwari in District Hamirpur. The case of the petitioner is that he was senior to respondent No.3 and his seniority was 4 duly reflected in the tentative seniority list of Patwaris of District Hamirpur, as on 31.12.1995 (Annexure A-1), wherein he was shown at Sr. No.78 and the name of respondent No.3 figured at Sr. No.80. However, in the final seniority list up to 31.3.2004 (Annexure A-2), he was shown Junior to respondent No.3 by placing him at Sr. No.58, as compared to private respondent No.3, who was shown at Sr. No.33. According to the petitioner, final seniority list (Annexure A-2), which even as per respondents No.1 and 2 was drawn and circulated on 28.5.2008, was not made available to him. It was in such circumstances that he moved an application (Annexure A-3) dated 3.6.2008, to the District Revenue Officer, District Hamipur, for supply of copy thereof to him. It was thereafter that he moved the erstwhile H.P. Administrative State Tribunal by way of original application (OA) which on abolition of the said Tribunal was transferred to this Court and has been registered as CWP (T) No.1213 of 2008. 6. The petitioner submits that he was appointed as Officiating Settlement Patwari on Adhoc basis for a period of six months in the first instance w.e.f. 15 July, 1972, vide office order dated 31.7.1972 (Annexure PR-1). Thereafter, vide office order dated 27.1.1979 (Annexure PR-2) he alongwith respondent No.3 and two other Patwaris was appointed as Patwari in District Hamirpur. A perusal of office order dated 27th January, 1979 (Annexure PR-2), would go to show that whereas, the petitioner is shown wherein as 5 Patwari, the designation of respondent No.3 is mentioned as Casual Patwari. 7. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No.1 and 2/competent authority that subject to the petitioner making a detailed representation supported by documents along with a copy of this judgment within three days from today, the same shall be considered by the said respondent/competent authority who shall make an endeavour to take final decision in the matter in accordance with law by 31st March, 2011, as admittedly respondent No.3, who was in the meantime promoted as Kanungo has already retired and the petitioner is also going to retire from Government service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.2011, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. Needless to say, that consequential benefits, if any, would follow the decision on the representation. 8. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP (s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 21st March, 2011. cs