IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. : 5406/2008 Decided on:11.8.2010 _____________________________________________ Amrik Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …Respondent. _____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. __________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Present petition has been filed for the following reliefs: i. “That the order dated 4.8.1998 may be quashed and set aside. Respondent may be directed to give regular promotion to the applicant w.e.f. 28.2.1986 and alternatively w.e.f. some date in the year 1987 when the vacancy against which the applicant was considered became available. ii. That the notification dated 31.3.92 to the extent impugned may be quashed and set aside and respondent may be directed to promote the applicant w.e.f. 28.2.1986. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 iii. That the respondent may be directed to give to the applicant the benefit of ad hoc service towards seniority and treat him as HPFS-II w.e.f. 28.2.1986 for all intents and purposes. iv. That the respondent may be further directed to re-draw the seniority list of HPFS Officers and place the applicant by treating him as HPFS-II w.e.f. 28.2.1986. He may be held entitled to all the consequential benefits including arrears of salary, further promotion etc.” 2. Primarily petitioner is seeking counting of his ad hoc services with effect from 28.2.1986 for all intents and purposes. His further case is that he should have been promoted with effect from 28.2.1986 instead of 31.3.1992. The petitioner has not impleaded necessary parties, who are likely to be affected in the eventuality of granting relief to the petitioner. The seniority is a civil right. Consequently, this petition is bad in law for non-joinder of necessary parties. Moreover, the case of the petitioner for regular promotion has already been considered to the post of HPFS-II on the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 30.9.1991 and 5.10.1991 by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. In the instant case, the copies of the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 30.9.1991 and 5.10.1991 were received by the Secretary (Forest) on 31.3.1992 and thereafter petitioner and similarly situate persons were promoted as HPFS-II with effect from 31.3.1992. 3 3. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 11.8.2010 *awasthi*