IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.6691 of 2020 Decided on: 26th November, 2024 __________________________________________________________ Ishwar Dass ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioner: Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge(Oral)

Petitioner, Ishwar Dass, a Class-IV official [Peon] is seeking promotion as Clerk [Class-III]

seeking the following relief(s) :-

“(i) That the order dated 26.02.2019 (Annexure A-7) rejecting the claim of the applicant may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) The objection filed by the applicant be reconsidered and final seniority list be made strictly on the basis of initial date of appointment.

(iii) That the respondents may be directed to finalize the seniority list of the applicant strictly on the basis of initial date of appointment of the applicant as Beldar with all consequential benefits.

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

(iv) The respondent be directed to place on record the copy of rules to eliminate seniority on transfer from Beldar to Peon and same may be quashed and set aside.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Case set up by Learned Counsel is that petitioner was engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis on 01.01.1985. On completion of 10 years of daily waged service the petitioner was regularized as Beldar [Work Charged] on 01.01.1995. The respondents transferred the petitioner, from Beldar [Work Charged] to the post of Peon on regular basis on 30.10.2006, in accordance with the Rules of Peon [Class-IV] i.e. Annexure A-1.

2(i). It is averred that the Respondents-State framed the R&P Rules for the post of Clerk on 15.05.2014 [Annexure A-2] and as per Rule 10(i) it was provided that 75% posts were to be filled by direct recruitment; and as per Rule 10(ii) read with Rule 11(i), 20% posts were to be filled by Limited Direct Recruitment from Class-IV officials, having 10+2 qualification, having 5 years regular service or regular combined with daily or contract service; and Rule 10(iii) and Rule 11(ii) provided that 10% posts of Clerk were to be filled by promotion from Class-IV officials, who were 10+2 having 5 years regular service or regular adhoc service; with further provision that Class-IV officials who were Matriculate and had crossed 50 years of age shall also be eligible for promotion as Clerk, from 10% promotion quota meant for Class-IV officials. Proviso to Rule 11 provides that for promotion, a combined list of eligible Class-IV officials, on the basis of length of service without disturbing the cadre-wise inter-se seniority shall be maintained.

2(ii). It is averred that respondent, Engineer- in-Chief, [IPH] Department, issued a Provisional Seniority List of Class-IV regular employees who were matriculate or possessed higher educational qualifications in IPH Department as on 31.12.2013 [Annexure A-3], in which the petitioner was placed at serial No.31, showing his appointment as Class-IV Work-Charge Beldar on 01.01.1995 and as regular Peon on 30.10.2006. It is averred that Respondent, Engineer-in-Chief, [IPH] issued another Provisional Seniority List of Regular Class-IV employees, who were matriculate or possessed higher qualifications showing the position as on 31.12.2018, as per communication dated 08.01.2019 [Annexure A-5], in which the petitioner was placed at serial No.49 showing the date of appointment as Class-IV Work- Charge Beldar as 01.01.1995 and as Class-IV [Peon] on 30.10.2006. Against this Provisional Seniority List [Annexure A-5] the petitioner submitted a representation on 22.01.2019 and another representation on 14.02.2019 [Annexure A-6] stating that his seniority as Class-IV should be reflected from 01.01.1995, i.e. the date he joined as Beldar [Class-IV] for the purpose of promotion as Clerk and moreover, when, about 16/17 junior Class-