PARVEEN GUPTA vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS - 2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2969

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Service Law - Seniority - Settled seniority cannot be altered after a significant lapse of time without providing the affected employee an opportunity to be heard - Seniority is a civil right that provides certainty and assurance in a service career; disturbing long-standing seniority creates insecurity and administrative complications. (Paras 10, 11, 13)

(B) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Any action that adversely affects the seniority of a government employee must comply with the principles of natural justice, including the issuance of a show-cause notice. (Para 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner and another employee were appointed to the same technical post and subsequently regularized. Through various seniority lists and an addendum, the petitioner was positioned as senior to the other employee for several years, including in lists issued in 2008, 2010, and 2014. However, in 2015, the final seniority list reversed this position, making the petitioner junior. Subsequently, a notification was issued shifting the petitioner's promotion date to a higher post from 2008 to 2011. The petitioner challenged these actions on the ground that settled seniority could not be disturbed without a hearing and that the justification used by the state was based on an inapplicable judicial precedent.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been consistently shown as senior from 2008 until 2014. The reversal of this position in 2015, occurring after more than six years and without granting the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, was illegal. The court further determined that the state's reliance on a specific judicial precedent regarding the counting of experience was misplaced, as both employees in the present case possessed the requisite qualifications prior to their appointment.

Issues: Whether the respondents could legally alter a settled seniority position after several years without following the principles of natural justice and whether such alteration was justified based on inapplicable judicial precedents.

Ratio Decidendi: Settled seniority constitutes a vested civil right that should not be disturbed after a long period (typically 3 to 4 years) as it is essential for maintaining administrative harmony and employee morale. Any attempt to unsettle such seniority without following the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard, is arbitrary and violative of the constitutional guarantees of equality and equal opportunity in matters of public employment.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned communications and notification quashed; petitioner to be considered senior with promotion date restored to 31.12.2008 and all consequential benefits awarded.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Seniority dispute — challenge to final seniority list and promotion notification altering settled seniority without hearing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )

2. Petitioner argued settled seniority cannot be altered without hearing; respondents contended rectification was pursuant to court judgment and rules. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )

3. Petition allowed; seniority and promotion date restored with consequential benefits and interest for delayed payment. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )

4. Can settled seniority be altered after a long delay without hearing?

No. Settled seniority cannot be altered after a long delay as it disturbs vested rights, and any alteration must comply with natural justice. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )

5. What is the requirement of natural justice before altering seniority?

An employee must be given an opportunity of being heard before his seniority is altered, as seniority is a civil right. (Para 10 , 14 )

6. Does a court judgment that does not directly address seniority justify altering settled seniority?

No. If the judgment does not deal with the specific issue of seniority of the employees, it cannot be used to alter settled seniority. (Para 14 )

7. Should benefits already received by a retired employee be protected when seniority is later corrected?

Yes, benefits already derived by the retired employee will not be altered, but the illegal correction of seniority is still set aside. (Para 16 )

8. Does disposal of an earlier petition on the same seniority issue bar a subsequent challenge to a later alteration?

No. If the earlier petition was disposed of with a direction to treat it as representation and the subsequent action is different, the later petition is maintainable. (Para 15 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

( 2026:HHC:19752 )

CWPOA No.57 of 2019

Decided on: 22^nd May, 2026

Parveen Gupta ....Petitioner

versus

State of H.P. and others ...Respondents

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the petitioner: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Onkar Jairath, Ms. Neha Thakur and Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocates.

For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.3.

(Oral)

1. The petitioner, by way of present petition, has laid challenge to the final combined seniority list of Junior Engineers (Civil) dated 09.12.2015 (Annexure A-12) wherein the petitioner has been shown at Seniority No. 327 instead of 326 and respondent No.3 has been shown at Seniority No.326 instead of Seniority No.327 and in the final seniority list of Junior Engineer (Civil) dated 09.12.2015 (Annexure A-13), possessing Diploma/ITI certificate/AMIE/B.E./B.Tech./ appointment in service/ joining service at seniority No.118 instead of 117 and respondent No.3 at Seniority No.117 instead of 118 and thereafter Notification has been issued on 08.10.2016 (Annexure A-14), wherein the petitioner has been shown to be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Class-I (Gazetted) in the pay scale/pay band of Rs.15600-39100 plus Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- on regular basis w.e.f. 31.12.2011 who was promoted on 31.12.2008 and respondent No.3 has been shown to be promoted on 31.12.2008.

2. The undisputed facts, which emerge from the pleadings, are that petitioner and respondent No.3 being qualified to hold the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) were appointed on 27.10.1995. Later on, as per decision taken by the State Government, those Junior Engineers (Civil) who had completed seven years of continuous contract service in the Department and were fulfilling the conditions as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules of Junior Engineer (Civil) I&PH were appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) on regular basis on 19.06.2004 (Annexure A-4). Respondent No.3 was shown at Serial No.5 and the petitioner at Serial No.18. The respondents-State issued the final seniority list of Junior Engineers (Civil) as on 31.12.2005 (Annexure A-5) and respondent No.3 was shown at Serial No.547 and petitioner at Serial No.548.

3. The petitioner being shown junior to respondent No.3 had made a representation, which was considered by the competent authority and addendum was issued on 10.10.1997 (Annexure A-7) and the seniority position of the petitioner which was earlier fixed as Seniority No.548 was changed and shown as 542-A i.e. after Shri Rajesh Kumar and column No.4 academic/technical qualification be read as matric, diploma in Civil Engineering (batch 1986-89) & B.E (Civil) May, 1992. Thereafter, final seniority list of Junior Engineers (Civil) working in the respondents-Department was issued on 29.12.2009 (Annexure A-8) and the petitioner was shown at Serial No.544 and respondent No.3 was shown at serial No.548 (page 61). Thereafter the final seniority list was again issued after the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.1358 of 2009, titled, S.S. Kutlehria vs. State of H.P and others on 23.08.2010 (Annexure A-9) and in this seniority list, the petitioner was shown at Serial No.163 and respondent No.3 at Serial No.164. Again as per Notification dated 28.07.2011 (Annexure A-10), the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer and was shown at Serial No.40 and respondent No.3 at Serial No.41 and the date of promotion of the petitioner and respondent No.3 was shown w.e.f. 31.12.2008. Thereafter, the provisional seniority list of Junior Engineers (Civil) as on 31.12.2011 (Annexure P-11) was issued and in this list, the petitioner was shown at Seniority No.326 and respondent No.3 at 327. However, when final seniority list of Junior Engineers as it stood on 31.12.2014 was issued, the petitioner who wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2969

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ
PARVEEN GUPTA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS – Respondent
CWPOA/57/2019

Long-standing settled seniority of a government employee cannot be disturbed after a significant lapse of time without following the principles of natural justice, as seniority is a civil right essential for administrative stability and employee morale.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can settled seniority be altered after a long delay without hearing?

5. What is the requirement of natural justice before altering seniority?

6. Does a court judgment that does not directly address seniority justify altering settled seniority?

7. Should benefits already received by a retired employee be protected when seniority is later corrected?

8. Does disposal of an earlier petition on the same seniority issue bar a subsequent challenge to a later alteration?

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2969

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JIYA LAL BHARDWAJPARVEEN GUPTA – AppellantVersusSTATE OF HP AND OTHERS – RespondentCWPOA/57/2019

Long-standing settled seniority of a government employee cannot be disturbed after a significant lapse of time without following the principles of natural justice, as seniority is a civil right essential for administrative stability and employee morale.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can settled seniority be altered after a long delay without hearing?

5. What is the requirement of natural justice before altering seniority?

6. Does a court judgment that does not directly address seniority justify altering settled seniority?

7. Should benefits already received by a retired employee be protected when seniority is later corrected?

8. Does disposal of an earlier petition on the same seniority issue bar a subsequent challenge to a later alteration?

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ
PARVEEN GUPTA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS – Respondent
CWPOA/57/2019