IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2125/2008. Reserved on: 21.5.2010. Decided on: 15.6. 2010 _____________________________________________ Om Parkash. …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation. …Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioner’s father, who was working as Driver in the respondent-corporation, died in harness on 21.8.1985. Petitioner was offered appointment on daily wages as Booking Clerk under the Kith and Kin Scheme and on compassionate grounds on 8.1.1986. He made representation vide Annexure A-4 for providing job of Booking Clerk on regular basis. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected on 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 20.9.1986. However, he was regularized on 2.12.1986 with effect from 5.9.1986. The final seniority list of Booking Clerks was circulated, as it stood on 31.3.1996 by the respondent- corporation. Petitioner made representation on 13.4.1992 against the seniority list. The same was rejected by the respondent-corporation on 29.7.1992. Petitioner approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of present original application (petition). In the meantime, respondent-corporation finalized the seniority of Booking Clerks as it stood on 30.11.1996. Petitioner sought amendment of the original application to assail the seniority list as it stood on 30.11.1996 in the year 2004. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he ought to have been appointed on regular basis with effect from 8.1.1986 and the seniority should be counted from 1.8.1986 instead of 5.9.1986. Precise case of the respondent- corporation is that as per Annexure R-1 issued on 17.3.1979, the persons who were appointed on daily wage basis were regularized after completion of 240 days continuous service. It is also the case of the respondent-corporation that the present petition is barred by delay and laches. Mr. Jeevesh Sharma has vehemently argued that the services of the petitioner ought to have been regularized with effect from 8.1.1986 instead of 5.9.1986. He then contended 3 that similarly situate persons S/Sh. Rajinder Prasad and Anup Kumar were appointed on regular basis, however, his client has been discriminated and he has been appointed on daily wage basis. He has relied upon the case of Sh. K.N. Sharma whose services have been counted with effect from 21.1.1976 instead of 2.5.1977 vide letter dated 2.7.2008. Mr. Adarsh Sharma has strenuously argued that the services of the petitioner could only be regularized as per Annexure R-1 dated 17.3.1979. In other words, he has supported the decision of the respondent-corporation to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from 5.9.1986 instead of 8.1.1986. He has strenuously argued that the petitioner remained silent with effect from 8.1.1986 and approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for the first time in the year 1993. He then contended that the final seniority list was issued on 30.11.1996, however, the petitioner has sought amendment in the original application in the year 2004. He lastly contended that the petitioner has not arrayed the employees, who are above him in the seniority list. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. Petitioner’s father died on 21.8.1985. Petitioner was offered appointment on daily wage basis as Booking Clerk on 4 8.1.1986. I have gone through the contents of letter dated 17.3.1979 (Annexure R-1). A bare perusal of the ingredients of letter dated 17.3.1979 reveals that a person is to be regularized after the completion of 240 days continuous service. In the present case, petitioner was appointed on 8.1.1986 and he has been regularized with effect 5.9.1986 vide letter dated 2.12.1986. Petitioner has not assailed the seniority list of Booking Clerks, which was issued in the year 1990. The final seniority list of Booking Clerks as it stood on 30.11.1996 was issued in the year 1996. Petitioner made representation assailing the same on 13.4.1992 and the same stood rejected on 29.7.1992. In the meantime, the final seniority list of Booking Clerk as it stood on 30.11.1996 was issued. Petitioner remained silent from 1996 till 2004. The Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is barred by delay and laches. The cause of action had arisen to the petitioner when his first representation was rejected on 20.9.1986, thereafter on 29.7.1992 when his another representation against the seniority list was rejected and thereafter on 30.11.1996 when new seniority list of Booking Clerks was published. It is also settled law in service jurisprudence that seniority once finalized should not be unsettled after a considerable period. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme 5 Court in H.S. Vankani and others versus State of Gujarat and others, AIR 2010 SC 1714 have held as under: “25. Seniority is a civil right which has an important and vital role to play in one’s service career. Future promotion of a Government servant depends either on strict seniority or on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority etc. Seniority once settled is decisive in the upward march in one’s chosen work or calling and gives certainty and assurance and boosts the morale to do quality work. It instills confidence, spreads harmony and commands respect among colleagues which is a paramount factor for good and sound administration. If the settled seniority at the instance of one’s junior in service is unsettled, it may generate bitterness, resentment, hostility among the Government servants and the enthusiasm to do quality work might be lost. Such a situation may drive the parties to approach the administration for resolution of that acrimonious and poignant situation, which may consume lot of time and energy. The decision either way may drive the parties to litigative wilderness to the advantage of legal professionals both private and Government, driving the parties to acute penury. It is well known that salary they earn, may not match the litigation expenses and professional fees and may at times drive the parties to other sources of money making, including corruption. Public money is also being spent by the Government to defend their otherwise untenable stand. Further it also consumes lot of judicial time from the lowest court to the highest resulting in constant bitterness among parties at the cost of sound administration affecting public interest. Courts are repeating the ratio that the seniority once settled, shall not be unsettled but the men in power often violate that ratio for extraneous reasons, which, at times calls for departmental action. Legal principles have been reiterated by this Court in Union of India 6 and Another v. S.K. Goel and Others (2007) 14 SCC 641, T.R. Kapoor v. State of Haryana (1989) 4 SCC 71, Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 604. In view of the settled law the decisions cited by the appellants in G.P. Doval’s case (supra), Prabhakar and Others case, G. Deendayalan, R.S. Ajara are not applicable to the facts of the case.” Petitioner has also not added the necessary parties. It is settled law by now that the persons, who are likely to be affected in case alteration of seniority is ordered, are required to be added as party-respondent. The present petition is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Petitioner has relied upon the case of Sh. K.N. Sharma. Sh. K.N. Sharma was appointed as Clerk on 15.7.1975 on daily wage basis and was regularized with effect from 21.1.1976. He has been given the benefit of service with effect from 21.1.1976 at par with Sh. Mahinder Singh. His representation was accepted by the State Government on 12.12.1983 vide Annexure R-1. He has also not been granted the benefit from the initial date of appointment on daily wage basis. In the instant case, petitioner is seeking regularization from the date of his initial appointment on daily wage basis, i.e. 8.1.1986. In view of the observations made hereinabove, petitioner is not entitled to be given the benefit from the date of appointment on daily wage basis and there is no illegality in the decision of the respondent-corporation whereby he has been regularized with 7 effect from 5.9.1986 as per letter dated 2.12.1986. Professed norm of the respondent-corporation at the relevant time was that the incumbent was to be appointed on daily wage basis and in those cases where the incumbents have completed 240 days continuous services, they were to be regularized. There is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he ought to have been appointed on regular basis under Kith and Kin Policy. The appointment on compassionate grounds is by way of relaxation of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. No person has a right to be considered for appointment on compassionate basis. Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 15.6. 2010 *awasthi*