IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 4765 of 2008. Decided on: 14.07.2010. Jitender Singh. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- (i) That the respondents be directed to correct the seniority position of the applicant assigning the applicant proper seniority as per his date of joining in the respondent Department. (ii) That the respondents be directed to correct the seniority position of the applicant in Annexure A-1, A-2 &A-6 assigning the applicant correct seniority position over and above his juniors. (iii) That the respondents be directed to pay and grant the applicant all benefits incidental to the correction of the seniority position of the applicant.” 2. Primarily, the petitioner is seeking assigning of seniority to him from the date of his joining in the respondent- 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - department. He has prayed for correction of the seniority position in Annexures A-1, A-1 and A-6, respectively. However, fact of the matter is that the petitioner has not arrayed the persons who are likely to be affected in case the petition is allowed. It is now well settled that the persons who are likely to be affected in case the seniority list is altered, are required to be arrayed as respondents. It is evident from the affidavit that the petitioner was 57 years old at the time of filing of this petition, i.e., 17.12.1997. It is equally settled law that once the seniority list has been prepared, the same should not be un-settled after a long period. 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 - 3 - 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 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” 4. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge July 14, 2010. (bhupender) - 4 - - 5 -