SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 1846

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Nanak Chand Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Others – Respondents
CWPOA No.403 of 2019
Decided On : 31-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate.

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.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Seniority - Challenge to tentative seniority list of Senior Assistants circulated in 1995 raised first by representation after 10 years in 2006 and writ petition filed near retirement in 2008 dismissed on grounds of delay, laches and acquiescence - Petitioner promoted to higher post on basis of list - Cannot unsettle settled seniority after lapse of reasonable time (3-4 years) without satisfactory explanation - Fence-sitters disentitled from disturbing third party rights - Mere belated representation does not furnish fresh cause of action or erase delay. (Paras 5, 5(i)-5(xi))

(B) Armed Forces Personnel - Re-employment - Benefit of approved military service (3 years 3 months) counted towards seniority as Clerk though minimum 5 years required per instructions - Cannot be denied retrospectively by subsequent instructions as vested rights under relevant rules cannot be defeated - No challenge to original grant of benefit. (Para 7)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner joined as Clerk earlier than private respondent who received credit for approved military service on re-employment. Initial clerk seniority lists placed petitioner senior but 1995 Senior Assistants list reversed position. Petitioner promoted to Superintendent Grade-II in 2002 based on that list. Claimed knowledge of irregularity only in 2005, represented in 2006, rejection in 2007 on delay grounds, petition filed in 2008 just before retirement.

Findings of Court:
Rejection order dated 21.11.2007 upheld; challenge to 1995 seniority list rejected; no direction to redraw seniority or grant promotions.

Issues: Whether challenge to circulated 1995 seniority list after 10-14 years delay maintainable; whether private respondent ineligible for military service seniority benefit and list to be revised accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: In service matters, seniority lists circulated and acted upon for years cannot be reopened belatedly as it unsettles positions, creates insecurity and prejudices others; inaction, negligence and acquiescence bar relief; claim of late knowledge rejected where promotions availed on impugned list.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. delay of 14 years bars challenge to settled 1995 seniority list. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Petitioner, Nand Chand Sharma, had initially filed an Original Application i.e. OA No 1299 of 2008, before Learned Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal and upon abolition of the Tribunal, the same was transferred to this Court as CWPOA No.403 of 2019, seeking the following relief(s):

“(i). That the order dated 21.11.2007 Annexure A may be quashed and set aside.
(ii). That the order granting the senior to respondent No.3 may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to redraw the seniority and in the alternative the applicant may be given all promotions to the post of Senior Assistant, Superintendent Grade-I and Superintendent Grade-II from the due date with all consequential benefits.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Case as set up by Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner joined service as a Clerk in the Respondent-Department on 17.07.1972 and was promoted as Senior Assistant on 28.01.1989 and was thereafter promoted as Superintendent Grade-II on 01.02.2002. It is averred that on the other hand, Respondent No.3 [Nanak Singh Arora] joined service as Clerk on 21.12.1974, who was promoted as Senior Assistant on 07.07.1989.
2(i). It is averred that the respondents issued Seniority-List of Clerks in Department of Agriculture as on 30.11.1977 [Annexure A-I] and a tentative Seniority-List of Clerks was issued on 09.12.1987 [Annexure A-2] in which petitioner was shown as senior to Respondent No.3 as aforesaid. It is averred that the Respondent-Department issued a Tentative Seniority-List of Senior Assistants showing the position as on 13.09.1995 [Annexure A-3], wherein, respondent No.3 was shown as senior to the petitioner in said Seniority-List. Petitioner has set up a case that though the Seniority-List of Senior Assistants was issued in 1995 vide Annexure A-3, showing the position of as on 13.09.1995, yet the petitioner came across a document in the year 2005, whereby, the petitioner came to know that Respondent No.3 was not eligible for benefit of approved Military Service of three years and three months for counting the said service towards seniority of re-employment which was erroneously given to him, due to which aforesaid Respondent No.3 was placed above in seniority list of Senior Assistants. Petitioner claims to have sought information under RTI in the year 2007 vide Annexure A-5 and Annexure A-6 and thereafter had made representation to competent authority. It is averred that based on the representation, the Department Authorities referred the matter to Principal Secretary (Agriculture) for looking into the factum of assigning seniority to respondent No.3 but Principal Secretary (Secretary) rejected the case on 21.11.2007 [Annexure A-9], on the ground, that even if Respondent No.3 was not eligible and was not to be assigned seniority by giving the benefit of approved Military Service on re-employment, then also, once the Seniority-List of Clerks was issued on 30.09.1995 [Annexure A-3] the same cannot be permitted to be re-opened after a delay of more than 14 years. It is in this backdrop, the claim of the petitioner for rectification of his seniority as Senior Assistant was rejected and the prayer for withdrawing seniority of approved military service upon re-employment as Clerk to the Respondent No.3 was turned down.

STAND OF RESPONDENTS IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT:
3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 14.05.2008, State Authorities have filed the Reply- Affidavit dated 05.07.2008 of Director of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh.
3(i). Perusal of the Reply-Affidavit, indicates that Respondent-State had objected to the filing of instant petition, assailing Seniority-List of Senior Assistants dated 30.09.1995 [Annexure A-3] on the ground that the said seniority has been assailed after the delay of 14 years. It is further averred that the petitioner was due for retirement on 31.05.2008 and







































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top