IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1061 of 2003. Date of decision: 23.6.2009 Sh.Parshotam Ram .... Petitioner Versus State of H.P & Ors. …. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Sh.R.M.Bisht, Dy.Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.Rajesh Verma, Advocate vice Mr.Rajinder Dogra, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ______________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to the order passed by the erstwhile H.P State Administrative Tribunal in O.A No.974/1995 decided on 10th July, 2003 rejecting the original application filed by the petitioner on the ground that it is time barred. Brief facts necessary for decision of the case are that the petitioner joined the Forest Department in the State of Himachal Pradesh as Forest Guard on June 1, 2 1960. Respondent No.4 was appointed as Forest Guard on 27th August, 1961. The date of confirmation in respect of respondent No.4 was August 27, 1961 and that given to the present petitioner was September 1, 1966. A seniority list was circulated on June 3, 1983 reflecting the position as on January 1, 1983. In this seniority list, the petitioner was shown junior to respondent No.4. The petitioner admittedly did not challenge the seniority list. Thereafter the respondent No.4 was promoted as Deputy Ranger on 10th September, 1984. The petitioner did not challenge this order of promotion also. According to the petitioner, he filed a representation against the order of promotion of the respondent No.4 but the original application challenging the order of the promotion of respondent No.4 was filed before the Tribunal in the year 1992 after a lapse of nine years. This original application was disposed of in December 2, 1994 and the same was directed to be treated as representation to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest who was directed to consider the case of the applicant on merits in accordance with law and to decide the same within four months. In compliance to the aforesaid orders, the Principal Chief 3 Conservator of Forest decided the matter on 13th February, 1995. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected on merits. It was not rejected on the ground that it was belated. On merits, it was held that respondent No.4 was senior to the petitioner since he had been confirmed from an earlier date and hence he had rightly been placed higher in the seniority list and promoted as Deputy Ranger. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing O.A No.974 of 1995. The learned Tribunal held that the cause of action arose in favour of the petitioner in the year 1983, i.e., more than three years prior to the constitution of the Tribunal which was constituted w.e.f. 1st September, 1986. It held that therefore, the petition did not lie before the Tribunal. It also came to the conclusion that O.A No.1672 of 1992 was itself time barred and on this ground the petitioner was held not entitled to any relief. We are constrained to observe that the Bench of the learned Tribunal deciding O.A No.974 of 1995 could not have overlooked the orders passed in O.A No.1672 of 1992. It appears that when the order was passed in O.A No.1672 of 1992, the counsel for the State did not raise any objection of limitation. The orders passed in O.A 4 No.1672 of 1992 have attained finality. In case the State was aggrieved by such order and was of the opinion that the original application was not within limitation, it should have challenged the order before the appropriate Court. Not having raised any objection and having accepted the orders passed in the said O.A, it did not lie in the mouth of the State to claim that the second O.A which was admittedly filed within six months from the date of passing of the order by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest was not within limitation. While taking this view, we are fortified by the fact that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest has decided the case on merits and has not held that the representation was belated. He having gone into the merits of the case, fresh cause of action arose in favour of the petitioner. It may be true that the original application was patently time barred. Rightly or wrongly an order was passed on the said application. This order was not challenged and has attained finality. This order could not be subject matter of criticism in the subsequent petition. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioner only on the ground of limitation. 5 Having held that the petition is within limitation, we find on merits the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Rightly or wrongly respondent No.4 was given deemed date of confirmation much earlier to that of the petitioner. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest rejected the application of the present petitioner only on the ground that the deemed date of confirmation of respondent No.4 is much earlier to that of the petitioner. The petition was filed after the copy of the order had been obtained. Despite this no challenge has been made till date to the order whereby the respondent No.4 has been confirmed w.e.f. 26.11.1956. In view of this fact that the confirmation order of respondent No.4 has not been challenged by the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the promotion of respondent No.4 which is only a consequence flowing out of the confirmation. The petition is, therefore, rejected with no order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge June 23, 2009 (Surinder Singh) (m) Judge