IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPT No8522 of 2008 Date of Decision: October 18, 2011 H.R. Kashyap ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. __________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner belongs to a scheduled caste. He was appointed as Pharmacist against a post reserved for the candidates of that category, in the year 1967. Pharmacists are entitled to selection grade. In the year 1986, an order was issued by the Director of Health Services, granting selection grade to a number of Pharmacists, with retrospective effect. Selection grade was granted to 12 Pharmacists, in all, by that order, which is Annexure A-2. Five persons, namely Filam Dass, Jagdish Singh, Tek Chand, Krishan Dass and Thakur Dass, who were juniors to Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É the petitioner and belonged scheduled caste category, were among those who were released selection grade, with retrospective effect. Three of them, namely Filam Dass, Jagdish Singh and Tek Chand were released such scale w.e.f. 1.1.1978, two others namely, Krishan Dass from 1.8.1980 and Thakur Dass from 1.8.1981. Names of above persons appeared at Sl. No. 229, 248, 249, 252 and 258 in the tentative seniority list, copy Annexure A-1. Name of the petitioner appeared at Sl. No.213 in the said list. Though the petitioner was senior to the above named five Pharmacists, belonging to his category, he was not released selection grade. He made a representation in which, it appears, he claimed that he did belong to SC category, but in the seniority list Annexure A-1, he was not being reflected as belonging to that category and perhaps because of this reason he had not been released selection grade against the posts reserved for scheduled caste, though five persons, juniors to him (named herein above) had been released such scale. His representation found favour with the respondents and an order, copy Annexure A-12, was issued on 22.1.1987 that he be shown as belonging to scheduled caste category in the seniority list to be circulated in future. Also, he was released selection grade vide order dated 12.4.1989 but w.e.f. 1.4.1985. É3É 2. Petitioner again represented that when it had been accepted that he belonged to scheduled caste category and had been appointed against a post reserved for scheduled caste and was also senior to the above named five persons of his category, as per seniority list Annexure A-1, he ought to have been released selection grade, at least from the date, when Film Dass, Jagdish Singh and Tek Chand had been released such scale i.e. 1.1.1978. His representation was sent by the CMO, under whom he was working, to the Director of Health Services, with the recommendation that he deserved to be released selection grade from the date from which his immediate junior scheduled caste pharmacists had been released such scale. That representation has been rejected vide order dated 6.7.2002, copy Annexure A-19, on the ground that service record of the petitioner had been gutted in fire. After the rejection of the said representation, petitioner immediately filed an Original Application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. On the abolition of the said Tribunal in the year 2008, matter has come to this Court and registered as the present writ petition. 3. Respondents, in their reply, do not deny that the petitioner belongs to scheduled caste category and was appointed against a post reserved for scheduled caste É4É candidates. Also, it is not denied that three persons, belonging to scheduled caste category had been released selection grade w.e.f. 1.1.1978 against the posts reserved for scheduled caste Pharmacists. It is, however, stated that since the name of petitioner was not reflected as a person belonging to scheduled caste category in the seniority list, copy Annexure A-1, he was not released selection grade alongwith his juniors, vide order dated 22.3.1986, copy Annexure A-2. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. If the petitioner had not been shown as a Pharmacist, belonging to scheduled caste category in the seniority list, copy Annexure A-1, he cannot be blamed for the same. Moreover, Annexure A-1 is only a tentative seniority list and has not been finalized. Admittedly, petitioner belongs to scheduled caste and had been appointed against a post reserved for the candidates of that category. Also, it is admitted that the petitioner was senior to five persons, named in the selection grade order, copy Annexure A-2. Three of the persons, named in that order belonging to scheduled caste category, who were juniors to the petitioner, had been released selection grade w.e.f. 1.1.1978. Therefore, the petitioner also ought to have been É5É released selection grade, at least from 1.1.1978. This is particularly so when petitioner’s plea, which he raised in his representation soon after the issuance of Annexure A-2, that he being senior to the scheduled caste pharmacists, named in Annexure A-2, ought to have been released selection grade, had been accepted and an order releasing selection grade in his favour, copy Annexure A-4, had also been issued, though such scale was released from a date subsequent to the date from which selection grade had been released in favour of his juniors. In view of the above stated position, present petition is allowed and respondents are directed to release selection grade in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1978, the date when three scheduled caste pharmacists, juniors to him had been released such scale, as per Annexure A-2. Petitioner shall also be entitled to all the monetary and service benefits as a consequence of this direction. Direction be complied with by 31.1.2012. October 18, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.