Point of Law: When a particular set of employees is given relief by Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit.

JUDGMENT :

All these petitions, for involvement and appreciation of common questions of law and facts, are being decided together by this order.

2. Petitioners, being duly sponsored by different Employment Exchanges, were appointed as Timber/Resin Watchers in respondent-H.P. State Forest Development Corporation (in short Corporation) w.e.f. 18.7.1983. Their services were regularized w.e.f. 1.8.1984 vide order dated 11.2.1988. Thereafter, tentative seniority list of Timber/Resin Watchers dated 3.10.1989, as stood on 1.4.1989, was issued. Some of Timber/Resin Watchers represented against the said seniority list. However, without deciding their representation, Corporation issued another seniority list on 25.7.1991, as it stood on 1.4.1991. Some of Timber/Resin Watchers represented against the same. However, their representation was rejected by Corporation on 9.10.1991.

3. Rejection of representation was assailed by some of Timber/Resin Watchers by filing OA No. 15 of 1992 before H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’). The said Original Application, vide order dated 3.4.1992, was disposed of by the Tribunal with direction to Corporation to treat the same as an appeal to the Board of Directors of respondent Corporation.

4. During pendency of appeal before Board of Directors, the Corporation circulated another seniority list on 3.6.1993 and also made promotions on the basis of said seniority list by promoting 14 persons to the post of Forest Guards.

5. Grievance of Timber/Resin Watchers was that in their seniority list persons working in other categories like peon, Chowkidar etc. were also included in seniority list of Timber/Resin Watchers whereas according to bye-law 3.4 seniority has to be determined on the basis of length of service in the grade and, therefore, the persons not belonging to grade of Timber/Resin Watchers were not to be included in seniority list of Timber/Resin Watchers.

6. Against the aforesaid omission and commission of Corporation, some of Timber/Resin Watchers filed an OA No. 656 of 1994 before the Tribunal for quashing the seniority list dated 3.6.1993. On abolition of the Tribunal, the said petition was transferred to the High Court and was re-registered as CWP-T No. 2265 of 2008.

7. CWP-T No. 2265 of 2008 was dismissed by the Single Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 29.3.2010.

8. Ramesh Chand Sharma and others, some Timber/Resin Watchers similarly situated to present petitioners, assailed order dated 29.3.2010 by filing LPA No. 55 of 2010 before the Division Bench of this High Court, which was disposed of on 02.08.2016 directing the respondents to do needful within six weeks from the date of order in terms of para 14 of impugned judgment dated 29.3.2010 passed in CWP-T No. 2265 of 2008.

9. Para 14 of judgment in CWP-T No. 2265 of 2008 reads as under:-

“14. The respondents No. 1 to 3 in their reply have submitted that the seniority list has again been looked into and discrepancies found have been corrected and instructions in this behalf have already been issued to respondent No.2 to correct all the seniority lists and not to include any other category of daily wagers in the seniority of Timber/Resin Watchers (daily wages). Therefore, in view of the stand of respondents No. 1 to 3 in their reply the grievance of the petitioners has been set at rest by respondents No.1 to 3 themselves when it has been stated in the reply that instructions have been issued to respondent No.2 to correct all the seniority lists and not to include any other category of daily wagers in the seniority of Timber/Resin Watchers (daily wages). Therefore, no separate directions are required from this Court not to include any other category of daily wagers in the seniority of Timber/Resin Watchers (daily wages).”

10. For non-compliance of aforesaid directions passed in LPA No. 55 of 2010 Ramesh Chand Sharma filed Execution Petition No. 11 of 2017, whereafter respondent Corporation extended the benefit of judgment passe