IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 5117 of 2008 Reserved on: 19.09.2011 Date of Decision: 15.10.2011. Shiv Ram and others …Petitioners. Versus. State of H.P. and another … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioners: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. The petitioners who at the relevant time were working as Forest Guards, have prayed that the services rendered by them as Coup Moharrirs be also counted and taken into consideration while counting their seniority in the cadre of Forest Guards and have also prayed for quashing of the order Annexure A-5 rejecting their prayer. 2. There is no dispute that the respondent-department used to follow the practice of appointing Coup Moharrirs though there were no specific recruitment and promotion rules with regard to this post but the practice being followed was that forest guards were appointed on regular 2 basis while Coup Moharrirs used to be given specified work of counting of stumps and recording of illicit felling etc. in the lots sold to the purchasers. According to the respondents the post of Forest Guard was a regular post and there was no post of Coup Moharrirs as such. The Coup Moharrirs when they were regularized were placed at the bottom of the cadre of Forests Guards since the post of Coup Moharrirs were sanctioned under specified scheme for sale of forest produce to purchasers. 3. After nationalization of the forests during the year 1983 it was decided to absorb all the Coup Moharrirs as Forest Guards but they were placed at the bottom of the list of Forest Guards w.e.f. 7.9.1983. On 7.9.1983 all the petitioners were absorbed and re-designated as Forest Guards and in the letter of appointment they were clearly told that they will be placed at the bottom of seniority list. The petitioners joined as Forest Guards without any protest in the year 1993. They kept silent for 13 years and it was only in the year 1996 that one of them sent a representation that the service rendered by him as Coup Moharrirs may also be counted as service rendered as Forest Guard. It appears that the Conservator of Forests recommended that his case be considered sympathetically but the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests clearly 3 recommended that they cannot be granted seniority from the date of appointment as Coup Moharrirs. According to him cadre of Coup Moharrirs was separate from that of Forest Guard. 4. It is thus obvious that the petitioners have filed this petition after great delay and there is no explanation as to why they kept silent for 15 years before filing the petition before the erstwhile H.P.State Administrative Tribunal. 5. Even otherwise, I find that as far as the recruitment and promotion rules of Forest Guards are concerned, the posts have to be filled in after advertisement and holding test and selection. The petitioners did not undergo this process and were appointed as Coup Moharrirs. They cannot now claim that the services rendered as Coup Moharrirs should also be counted in the cadre of Forest Guard. The petitioners claim that the benefit of service rendered as Coup Moharrirs had been extended to Shri Sukh Ram, Amar Singh and Lagoo Ram. Therefore, on 23.6.2011 this Court had ordered that the relevant record be produced. I have perused the record and I find that none of these persons has been given the benefit of service rendered as Coup Moharrirs while granting them seniority as Forests Guards and all of them have worked as Coup Moharrirs prior to the petitioners and had joined 4 as Forest Guards prior to the petitioners. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. No costs. 15th October, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.