IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 4843 of 2008 Decided on : 09.11.2010 Ranjit Singh ..…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. G.S. Thakur, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. For respondents No. 8 to 12 : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. and 14. None for the remaining respondents. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7 (i) and (ii):- “(i) To quash impugned order Annexure A-6 and the Respondents may be directed to allow seniority of Applicant in clerical cadre of Agriculture Department (Parent Department) over and above his juniors appearing from serial No. 273 to 288 because incumbent working from Sr. No. 273 to 288 are junior to the Applicant prima facie and had joined subsequent to the Applicant. (ii) That the Applicant may be declared entitled to count his service with effect from 10.10.1980 (Fore Noon) to 6-1-1981 (After Noon) and the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. respondents may be directed to count this period of initial service for all intents and purposes of service.” 2. In para 6 (b), (c), (d), (e) and (j&k) of the reply it is averred as under:- “(b) In reply to this para it is submitted that the joint Selection committee constituted for appointment of clerks in wake of N.G.O strike 1980 and the applicant was recommended for the post of clerk in the Department with the direction to the replying respondent to issue the formal appointment order vide endorsement made on Annexure A/1 to the application. (c) Admitted. It is further submitted that the joining report was in response to Annexure A/1 which is not the appointment order issued by the competent authority whereas the appointment order against the vacancy was issued on 2nd January 1981 Annexure A/3 to the application. (d) In reply to this para it is submitted that the replying respondents issued formal appointment orders copy of which is annexed as Annexure A/8 to the application and the applicant responded to and joined the post of clerk in the Directorate of Agriculture Shimla on 7-1-1981. The applicant has misconstrued the condition No.15 which is wrong and denied. It is further submitted that the applicant alongwith other candidates were selected by the Joint Selection Committee and amongst one Smt. Shoshana Devi, who was directed to report for duty to the District Agriculture Officer Kinnaur where she joined on 15-10-1980 pending the receipt/issue of formal order of appointment by the authority, but there was no vacant post and the formal order of her appointment were issued by the replying respondent on 2-1-81 and she joined the post in response to the formal appointment order on 2 17-1-81 where as She was claimed her seniority from 15-10-80 and the case was referred to the Govt. for clarification as to whether the seniority will be count from the date, the applicant joined on direction of Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur or from the date She actually joined the post against the effective vacancy for which the formal order of appointment authority issued. The Govt. vide letter No. Agr.20-15(29)/79 dated 15th June, 1981, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure R.I, decided and clarified that the services in the post would only be counted from the date the candidates joined in the office allocated after the issue of appointment orders. Accordingly the petitioner is entitled for seniority w.e.f 7-1-1981 and not from the date 10-10-1980 as claimed. (E) The contents of this para are wrong and denied. The annexure A/4 is not transfer order but the Dy. Director of Agriculture Bilaspur informed the applicant alongwith others to join their duties in compliance to their offer of appointment made by the competent authority (Annexure A/3) which is respond to and joined the post in the Directorate of Agriculture Shimla-5 on 7-1-1981. (J&K) The applicant made the representation which stands decided in view of the decision given by the Govt. vide Annexure R/1 as the copy of which was also supplied to the applicant. Accordingly he claimed pay which was just part of the clarification. Hence the allegations of discrimination are wrong and denied. 3. In case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, it will be open to him to approach the first respondent in which case the said respondent will look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law and justice, after giving 3 personal hearing to the petitioner and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed within four months. 4. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 9th November, 2010. Lsp* 4