IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 51 of 2008, 52 of 2008, 199 of 2007, 200 of 2007 and CWP No. 387 of 2006 and CWP No. 388 of 2006. Decided on: 8th December, 2010. 1. LPA No. 51 of 2008. High Court of H.P. & another. ….Appellants. Versus. Sh. Chure Ram Thakur & others. ….Respondents. For the appellants: Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate for Respondents No. 2 to 5. 2. LPA No. 52 of 2008. High Court of H.P. & another. ….Appellants. Versus. Sh. Sukh Ram & others. ….Respondents. For the appellants: Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate for Respondents No. 2 to 5. 3. LPA No. 199 of 2007. Sh. Chaman Dharma & others. ….Appellants. Versus. Sh. Chure Ram Thakur & others. ….Respondents. For the appellants: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate for Respondents No. 2 & 3. 2 4. LPA No. 200 of 2007. Sh. Chaman Dharma & others. ….Appellants. Versus. Sh. Sukh Ram & others. ….Respondents. For the appellants: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate for Respondents No. 2 & 3. 5. CWP No. 387 of 2006. Sh. Chure Ram Thakur. …..Petitioner. Versus. H.P. High Court & others. ….Respondents. For the petitioner. Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate for the Respondents 6. CWP No. 388 of 2006. Sh. Sukh Ram. …..Petitioner. Versus. H.P. High Court & others. ….Respondents. For the petitioner: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) These appeals are filed at the instance of respondents/ petitioners. The simple issue pertains to the seniority dispute amongst 3 the Senior Assistants in the Civil and Sessions Division, Kinnaur at Rampur. It may be profitable to refer to the history of the dispute. Kinnaur Sessions Division was newly created in July, 1995, bifurcating the Sessions Division, Shimla. It is seen that 24 posts were sanctioned, out of which 8 posts were of Senior Assistants. Since regular appointment was a time consuming process, sanction was accorded by the High Court for filling up the posts on adhoc basis, as per communication dated 2.8.1995, addressed to the District and Sessions Judge, Kinnaur. It is further seen from the file that promotions and postings were made on the basis of option exercised by the ministerial staff of Shimla Sessions Division. Though eight vacancies were there, only five Clerks in the Shimla Sessions Division exercised their option for being promoted and posted as Senior Assistants on adhoc basis, apparently owing to the distance and inclement weather. Accordingly, vide order dated 22.8.1995, they were appointed as Senior Assistants on adhoc basis. Since all the eight posts of Senior Assistants could not be filled up, even on adhoc basis, it is seen that the Sessions Judge, Kinnaur took steps to appoint the remaining three Senior Assistants by direct recruitment. The writ petitioners are the directly recruited Senior Assistants. They were also working as Clerks in various other Sessions Divisions. Out of the three direct recruits, only two came up with the writ petitions namely Sh. Chure Ram (CWP No. 387 of 2006) and Sh. Sukh Ram ( CWP No. 388 of 2006). They were appointed on 28.2.1996 and 14.7.1997, respectively. In the case of the adhoc appointees, it is seen that their appointments have been regularized as per proceedings dated 30.4.1997 w.e.f. the joining date as Senior Assistants as per order dated 22.8.1995. Though the writ petitioners have not challenged the regularization, they claim that they should be given seniority above them who had originally been appointed only on ad hoc basis. When the 4 seniority list as on 2001 was published, the adhoc appointees, who had been regularized in service were shown senior to the writ petitioners. They made representations, which were rejected. They made appeals to the High Court, which were also rejected and thus, the writ petitions. 2. The writ petitioners, it may be noted at the very out set are aggrieved only on account of their seniority. There is no challenge on the order of regularization of the adhoc appointees. The learned Single Judge, despite their being no challenge on the regularization of the adhoc appointment held that adhoc appointees should not have been regularized and hence they are not entitled to seniority. Reliance is also placed by the learned Single Judge on the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts Staff (Recruitment, Promotion and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997. Thus aggrieved the proforma respondent namely The High court and the private respondents namely the adhoc appointees have come up in appeals. 3. Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules provides for seniority, which reads as under:- “14. Seniority-(1) Persons appointed in a substantive or officiating capacity in a cadre in the Civil and Sessions Division on the date immediately preceding the date on which these rules came into force, shall retain the relative seniority already assigned to them. (2) Subject to provisions of sub-rules (1) and (3) of this rule, permanent members in each cadre shall rank senior to persons who are officiating in that cadre. (3) The seniority of the direct recruits shall be determined by the order of merit in which they are selected for appointment and persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection shall be senior to those appointed as a result of subsequent selection. (4) The relative seniority-cum-merit to the various posts shall be determined on the basis of their length of service in the feeder cadre. 5 (5) Where the promotions are made on the basis of selection on merit only, the seniority of such promotees shall be in the order of merit determined by the Appointing Authority.” 4. It is significant to note that Rule 14(1) provides that the relative seniority prior to 1997 amongst persons appointed on substantive or officiating capacity will be retained. Rule 14 (2) provides that permanent members in each cadre shall rank senior to persons who are officiating in that cadre. As far as the appellants namely the original adhoc appointees are concerned, they have been made permanent w.e.f. from the date of their joining duties in the adhoc service, as per order dated 30.4.1997. It is also significant in this context that such regularization has been made as per the Rules framed by the High Court under Section 35 (3) of the Punjab Courts Act for Subordinate Courts Service, attached to Civil Courts other than the High Court. The writ petitioners namely direct recruits have not challenged the regularization of the adhoc appointments of the private respondents/appellants. There is also no challenge to the Rules. Both are vital and fatal since they have been granted seniority only on the basis of their being permanent members in the cadre. Rule 14(1) also gives a seal on their pre 1997 seniority. There cannot be any dispute that seniority is to be fixed on the basis of the length of service in the cadre. 5. Thus, it is clear from the records that the seniority has been fixed only on the basis of date of regular appointment. The appellants who are the adhoc appointees have been given regular appointment w.e.f. the date of their joining of duties as adhoc appointees, as per order dated 30.4.1997 and since those orders have become final as on date, the writ petitioners who were directly 6 recruited in the years 1996 and 1997, which the appellants were working as such, cannot have any grouse or grievances in that regard. Their contention that seniority should have been fixed on the basis of length of service in the feeder cadre also has no relevance since they have come from two different channels i.e. the appellants by way of promotion and writ petitioners/respondents by direct recruitment. These crucial aspects of the issue have not been addressed in the judgment by the learned Single Judge, which is impugned in these appeals. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and allow the appeals and dismiss the writ petitions. The appellants by virtue of their unchallenged date of regularization and by virtue of the operation of Rule 14(1) of the rules are entitled to retain the seniority as on 2001 published in the year 2003. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 8th December, 2010 (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (kck) Judge.