IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 7446 of 2008. Decided on 30.3.2011 Ramesh Chand ..…Petitioner. Versus The Himachal Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director and another. …. Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : None. For the respondents No.1 and 2 : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate For the respondent No.3 : None, though duly served. Respondent No.4 not served. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (i) to (iv) : “ (i) That the seniority list of Clerks issued on 31.10.1996 (A-4) and the subsequent seniority list of Clerks issued thereafter, placing the applicant below the respondents No.3 and 4 be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the seniority list of Junior Assistants issued on 14.10.1999 (A-7) and the subsequent seniority list of Junior Assistants issued thereafter, placing the applicant below the respondents No.3 and 4 be quashed and set aside. (iii) That the respondents may be directed to place the applicant as senior to the respondents No.3 and 4 as Clerk and as Junior Assistants in the seniority list vide Annexures A-4 and A-7 respectively and in the subsequent seniority list as per 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Clause IV & VI of the orders/letter dated 10.9.1984 vide Annexure A-2, on the basis of which the surplus Conductors like the applicant and the respondents were to be absorbed as Clerks etc. forthwith. (iv) That in case the respondents No.3 and 4 are promoted to the higher post, during the pendency of the OA, then, the respondents corporation may be directed to consider and promote as such w.e.f. the date the juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits.” 2. In reply, respondents No.1 and 2 have taken the following stand by way of preliminary submissions : “ That the Original Application filed by the applicant is liable to be dismissed as the absorption of surplus Conductors, including the applicant against a post of Clerks was subject to the availability of posts, in the concerned cadre. The respondent corporation had rightly shown the applicant as junior to the respondents No.3 and 4 in the final seniority list of Clerks issued on 31.10.1996 (Annexure A-4 with the OA) and consequently in the provisional seniority list of Junior Assistants issued on 14.10.1999 (vide Annexure A-7 with the OA) and in the subsequent seniority list of Clerks and the seniority list issued from time to time by virtue of the “date of appointment and the date of joining of the applicant vis-à-vis the respondents No.3 and 4 in the absorbed cadre of Clerks” respectively. Thus once the applicant was appointed as a Clerk by way of transfer/absorption in the pay scale of Rs.400-600 vide DM, HRTC Dharamshala Order No.HRTC/DM- 3 DSL/A-73/S-4 (iii)-9273 on 17.1.1987 and once the applicant had joined as a Clerk on 24.1.1987, without any protest at that time, then, the applicant has no right to claim seniority as Clerk from an earlier date or from the date the respondents No.3 and 4 were appointed as Clerks by way of absorption where they had joined on 4.8.1986 and 6.6.1986 respectively.” 3. Rejoinder to the above reply on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 has been filed. 4. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance, he shall be free to make a representation along with copy of this judgment to respondent No.2/competent authority within one month from today, who shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter within next two months in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 5. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP (s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 30th March, 2011. cs