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
| 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
Union of India and others versus C. Girija and others
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.
Challenges to seniority fixation rejected as time-barred after long delay despite publication; constructive res judicata from prior identical OA applies; settled positions not disturbed to protect ac....
Delay in challenging seniority list should not be condoned as it seeks to disturb the vested rights of other individuals.
Employment and Service matter - Re-assessment of seniority - As per Rule 3(1)(b), seniority of teachers in a grade has to be determined on basis of their substantive appointment in that grade, meanin....
Claims regarding seniority must be raised promptly; failure to do so can lead to dismissal based on delay and laches.
Point of Law : Promotions made prior to enforcement of such Rules were not to be affected by 1999 Rules as such Rules were to operate prospectively and not retrospectively.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.