Back
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
Salig Ram – Appellant
Versus
H. P. State Forest Development Corp. – Respondent
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
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of delay and laches in filing a writ petition, and the dismissal of the petition on these grounds.
The claim for restoration of seniority is barred by delay and laches, as the promotions of junior candidates were not timely challenged, affirming the necessity of prompt legal action in service matt....
Claims regarding seniority must be raised promptly; failure to do so can lead to dismissal based on delay and laches.
Retrospective promotion cannot be granted to an employee from a date when the employee was not borne in the cadre. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the 2002 Rules was found inapplicable to determine the int....
The court held that settled seniority cannot be disturbed after a long period, emphasizing the principle of res judicata and the limits of administrative power in altering promotion dates.
Seniority of foresters appointed under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme is determined from training date, upholding compliance with existing rules and rejecting retrospective claims based on merger a....
Belated challenge to circulated seniority list after 10+ years dismissed on delay, laches and acquiescence; settled seniority not to be unsettled without explanation, protecting third-party rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
