IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No. 5509 of 2020 Decided on : 05.09.2023 Hans Raj Thakur and others .…Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and othoers …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioners : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Pratush Sharma, Addl. AG with Mr.

Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate C General for respondents no. 1 to 3/

State.

: Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No. 20, 21, 24, 33, 47 and

80 to 83.

: Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate vice Mr.

Onkar Jairath, Advocate, for respondent No. 39.

: Mr. Gambhir Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 63.

: Respondents No. 4 to 17, 19, 22, 25 to

32, 34 to 38, 41, 43 to 46, 48, 49 and 53 to 61, 64 to 71, 73, 74, 76 and 79 are ex parte.

: Respondents No. 18, 23, 40, 42, 62, 75, 77 and 78 in person.

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- H “(i) That the impugned condition No. 9 contained in letter dated 04/05/2017, Annexure A-10, which stipulates that the regularization wtould be with prospective effect only, may be either read down or struck down being in violation of the provisions of the Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, so that the same does not come in the way of hcounting the pre-regularization service of applicants towards seniority and other service benefits.

ii) That the impugned seniority list dated 23.07.2018, Annexure A-14, whereby private respondents/RFOs, promoted after the contractual appointment of the applicants and before their regularization, have been placed senior to them, may be quashed and set aside; iii) That the respondents may be directed to re- draw the seniority list of RFOs in the respondent department by counting the servic.e rendered by applicants in the cadre of RFOs from the date of their initial appointment on contract basis, followed by regularization without interruption, with all consequential benefits;

iv) That if durintg the pendency of OA, any of the private respondents/RFOs promoted after the contractual appointment of the applicants and their regularization, is promoted to the post of RFO, in that event such promotion may also be set aside and the respondent department may be directed t consider the applicants for promotion to HPFS (ACF) cadre from the date of promotion of their junior(s), with all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary and interest at market rate on delayed payments;

v) That respondent department may be directed to take into account the service rendered by applicants from the date of their initial appointment followed by their regularization, towards increments and all other servic.e benefits, notionally by giving the actual benefits thereof from the date of their regularization, with all consequential benefits.”

2. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Range Forest Officers, on contract basis, in the year 2012, pursuant to a stelection process undertaken as per the relevant Recruitment and Promotion Rules. They underwent the necessary training from the Central Academy for State Forest Service, Burnihat (Assam), and on completion of their respective training, they reported back for duty. Annual agreements were duly executed by the petitioners in terms of their conditions of appointment. Thereafter, services of the petitioners were regularized vide order dated 29.05.2017 (Annexure A-11). A provisional seniority list of Range Forest Officers, as on 31.12.2017, was circulated by the Department vide letter dated 11.04.2018 (Annexure A-12). In this provisional seniority list, the petitioners were placed junior to the Range Forest Officers, who were promoted to the said post after the appointment of the petitioners on contract basis. This was objected to by the peti