ORDER

1. This appeal is by an employee who assails the order dated 15-11-1996 passed by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla (the Tribunal).

2. The appellant was initially recruited as a Clerk in Himachal Pradesh Secretariat in the pay scale of Rs 110-250. The post of Assistant is a higher post in the pay scale of Rs 225-500. The recruitment to these posts is made under the rules framed by the Governor under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution called "the H.P. Secretariat Class III Service (Recruitment, Promotion and Certain Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973" (hereinafter referred to as "the Recruitment Rules").

3. Certain posts of Assistants being available to be filled up in the Office of the Resident Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh, New Delhi, an advertisement had been issued and the option of the departmental candidates serving in Himachal Pradesh Secretariat was also taken. The appellant offered to serve as an Assistant in the Resident Commissioners Office at New Delhi. After his application was forwarded to the Resident Commissioner who was the Head of the Department, he was finally selected and later on appointment letter was issued in his favour from the Office of the Resident Commissioner at New Delhi on 5-7-1974. That letter of appointment unequivocally indicates that the appointment was to a temporary post on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. One of the conditions was that no travelling allowance was to be paid for joining the post in Delhi. The Secretariat Administration at Shimla relieved the appellant to enable him to join his duties in the Office of the Resident Commissioner at New Delhi and by order dated 16-5-1974, it was stated that the appellant would sever all service connections from the Secretariat w.e.f. the date of his being relieved. The appellant thereafter joined the post of Assistant in the Office of the Resident Commissioner, New Delhi. While he was so continuing, the Governor appears to have passed an order of integration of the employees in the Office of the Resident Commissioner with the employees serving in the Secretariat on 27-7-1984. It was stated therein that the integration would take effect from 1-3-1984. This order dated 27-7-1984 was superseded by an order of the Governor dated 7-8-1986 and under the said order of 7-8-1986 the integration was sought to be taken effect to w.e.f. 19-8-1986. The said order was later on withdrawn in the year 1997. In 1999, however, the order of withdrawal stood withdrawn and as of now, therefore, there has been an integration of the Office of the Resident Commissioner with that of the Secretariat.

4. The appellant approached the Tribunal claiming inter alia that his services w.e.f. the date of his absorption in the Office of the Resident Commissioner should be taken into consideration for the purposes of seniority in the integrated cadre. At any rate, it was contended that it should be taken into account at least from 1984, the date on which there has been an integration of the two cadres. The Tribunal however taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and inaction on the part of the governmental authorities in not confirming the post against which the appellant was serving, directed that the appellant would be entitled to have his seniority w.e.f. 30-11-1980 and consequential benefits flowing therefrom inasmuch as it is on account of not declaring the post permanent which stood in the appellants way of being confirmed and consequentially getting his seniority in the cadre. Though the State Government assailed this order of the Tribunal, but this Court did not grant special leave to the State. Therefore the direction of the Tribunal that the appellant would be entitled to have his a seniority in the unified cadre w.eJ. 30-11-1980 has reached its finality. The only question that arises for consideration is, whether from any earlier point of time, the appellant could claim that his seniority should