IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.: 6531/2008 Decided on: 29.06.2010 ______________________________________________________ Tilak Parkash ..…..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others. ….…. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) This case makes very strange reading. There was a dispute with regard to the inter se seniority of petitioner Shri Tilak Parkash and Shri K.K. Uppal. Both, the present petitioner Tilak Parkash and Shri K.K. Uppal who were working as Stenographers in the Department of Education filed writ petitions against each other. These writ petitions were decided by the Administrative Tribunal vide a common order dated 22nd August, 1991. In para-13 of the order, the Tribunal held as follows:- “As noticed above, the respondent No. 3 KK Uppal was promoted as Senior Scale Stenographer on July 24, 1980 without even calling upon him to undergo proficiency test of shorthand and typewriting. That respondent No. 3 was promoted as Senior Scale Stenographer without promoting him earlier even as …2… a Junior Scale Stenographer, as was done in the case of applicant Shri Tilak Parkash, speaks volumes and smacks of favourtism. The promotion of respondent No. 3 as Senior Scale Stenographer was against the recruitment rules for Class-III posts in education Department (Ministerial Staff) issued vide notification dated April 26,1973, Annexure-T, but his appointment was made in 1980 and after a lapse of 11 years now the same need not be disturbed as it will result in unsettling the settled matters. We cannot also lost sight of the fact that his long experience as Stenographer is an additional circumstance to assess his suitability to be retained as Senior Scale Stenographer. Once respondent No.3 K.K. Uppal was appointed as Senior Scale Stenographer and was allowed to work for a considerable length of time, against such a post, it would be rather harsh to deny him continuation in post on the ground that he failed to qualify the prescribed shorthand and type test as required by the rules. But he cannot be made senior to Shri Tilak Parkash, applicant who had been promoted as Stenographer on December 31, 1973, i.e. about 7 years prior to the respondent No.3.”. 2. This clearly shows that the Tribunal found that the present petitioner Shri Tilak Parkash was senior to Shri K.K. Uppal. Not only this, the Tribunal did not find any merit in the petition of Shri K.K. Uppal and held him not only junior to Shri Tilak Parkash but also one Shri O.P. Dadwal, respondent No. 5, in the petition filed by Shri K.K. Uppal. The petition filed by Shri Uppal was dismissed in the following terms:- “ The connected writ petition No. 185/85(TA-705/86- Kewal Krishan Uppal Versus State of Himachal …3… Pradesh and others) was filed by respondent N.3 Shri K.K. Uppal in the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal vide orders dated October 31,1986. The questions involved in both the writ petitions are identical and as such have been disposed of by a single judgment passed in TA- 419/86 Tilak Parkash Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. Shri O.P. Dadwal, respondent no. 5 was promoted as Senior Scale Stenographer in the pay scale of Rs. 160-400 on August 27,1970 ( as averred by Shri KK Uppal himself in para-13 of his petition) much before the promotion of the petitioner Shri K.K. Uppal. The respondent No. 7 Shri Jagdish Lal Dhiman is no doubt an allocated employee from Punjab but the petitioner Shri K.K. Uppal has made no specific averment against the appointment/promotion of Shri Jagdish Lal Dhiman as Senior Scale Stenographer, and that being so, we find no reason to place Jagdish Lal Dhiman junior to the petitioner. The petition of Shri K.K. Uppal TA- 705/86 is dismissed with no orders as to costs”. 3. This order of the Tribunal was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the appeal filed by Shri K.K. Uppal was dismissed on 13.01.1993. Despite the orders passed by the Tribunal which were upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court, some official in the Department of Education had the temerity to sit over the well reasoned orders passed by the Tribunal as well as …4… the orders of Hon’ble Apex Court and after Shri O.P. Dadwal retired, Shri K.K. Uppal was promoted by treating him senior to Shri O.P. Dadwal. Relevant portion of this order reads as follows:- “ I have the honour to refer to your letter No: 1- 550/75-Shiksha-Ka, dated 17th May, 1999 on the subject cited above and to submit that the promotion orders in respect of Shri K.K. Uppal on notional basis have been issued as under:- 1. Sr. Scale Stenographer (160-400- Pre-revised) w.e.f. 27.8.70 2. Sr. Scale Stenographer (225-500-Pre-revised) w.e.f. 1.2.71 3. Supdt. Gr.IV ( 620-1200 Pre-revised) w.e.f. 5.9.85 to 25.10.90 4. Supdt. Gr.II (800-1400-Pre-revised) w.e.f. 5.9.85 to 25.10.90 The above dates have been determined on the basis of available record and from which date Shri O.P. Dadwal( now retired as registrar) was promoted on different dates to the different posts. You are, therefore, requested to issue further orders of promotion to the post of Supdt.-grade-I(Gazetted) in respect of Shri K.K. Uppal w.e.f. 27.10.1990 the date on which Shri Dadwal was promoted as Supdt.-Gr.I. The copies of orders of promotion on notional basis as above are also enclosed for your reference. …5… However, if there is any clash comes, a supernumerary post be created till the retirement of Sh. K.K. Uppal. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Director of Education, Himachal Pradesh.” 4. This order is totally illegal having been passed in total violation of the orders of the Tribunal. However, neither Shri K.K. Uppal is a party in this petition, nor the correctness of the order is challenged before this Court. However, the petitioner who is undoubtedly senior to Shri K.K. Uppal is claiming that the relief(s) granted to Shri K.K. Uppal be also granted to him. There is no reason why the petitioner should be denied his legitimate claim. He has been found to be senior to Shri K.K. Uppal and must be given the same benefits which have been given to his junior. The petition is accordingly allowed with the direction to the respondent to treat the petitioner senior to Shri K.K. Uppal and to grant him the reliefs, which have been granted to Shri K.K. Uppal. The needful be done on or before 31st October, 2010 failing which the monetary benefits will carry interest @ 12% per annum from today till date of payment. 5. It is made clear that the State shall be at liberty to recover the amount which has already been paid to Shri Uppal & which is found payable to the petitioner after holding due inquiry, from the officials who have totally violated and disobeyed the orders of the Tribunal and the Hon’ble Apex Court. 6. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No orders as to costs. …6… (Deepak Gupta) Judge June 29, 2010 “BRB”