2025:HHC:6660 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.1319 of 2019 Reserved on: 11.03.2025 Decided on: 19.03.2025 __________________________________________________________ Shankar Dass and others …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? No ______________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Rajeshwar Thakur, Advocate, for petitioner No.3. For the respondents: Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2-State. Respondent No.3 stands deleted vide order dated 21.11.2022. Respondents No. 4 and 5 ex parte. Satyen Vaidya, Judge By way of instant petition, the petitioners have prayed for grant of following substantive reliefs: (1) That the petitioners in the facts and circumstances prays that the direction may be issued to the respondents to regularize petitioners No. 1 to 3 to the post of Clerks w.e.f. 14.11.2011 with all consequential benefits and also seniority to the petitioners i.e. above the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:6660 respondents No. 3 to 5 or in the alternative in case such promotions cannot be ordered than the Annexure P/10 dated 14.11.2011 may be set aside and quashed in order to maintain the equal opportunity of employment to similar situated employees in the department. 2. The petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 were appointed as Peons in the pay scale of Rs.300–430/- in respondent- department. Their respective dates of appointments were 14.02.1983, 06.05.1983 and 07.02.1986. 3. Petitioners No. 1 and 3 are graduates and petitioner No.2 has passed +2 examination. 4. Respondents No. 3 to 5 were initially appointed as Chainman in respondent-Department, however, the said respondents had been claiming appointments as Clerks on the premise that they were discharging the duties of Clerks right from the beginning. Respondents No. 3 to 5 had filed separate writ petitions being CWP(T) No.3845 of 2008, CWP(T) No. 3132 of 2008 and CWP(T) No. 3133 of 2008 seeking appointments as clerks on the principle of equal pay for equal work. 3 2025:HHC:6660 5. A Division Bench of this Court vide a common judgment dated 27.10.2010 decided all the above petitions and issued directions to the respondents to consider and decide the cases of respondents No. 3 to 5 herein in light of judgment passed by this Court on 14.07.2009 in CWP(T) No. 3688 of 2008 titled Ramesh Chand vs. State of H.P. 6. In compliance to aforesaid judgment dated 27.10.2010, the respondents found the cases of respondents No. 3 to 5 to be covered by the case of Ramesh Chand supra [CWP(T) No.3688 of 2008] and vide office order dated 14.11.2011(P-10) appointed respondents No. 3 to 5 as Clerks against vacant posts in Land and Forest Settlement Division Shimla in the pay band Rs.5910-20200 + Grade Pay Rs.1900. 7. Aggrieved against the appointment of private respondents as Clerks vide office order dated 14.11.2011 (Annexure P-10), the petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant petition. Their first grievance is that the private respondents were not eligible to be appointed as Clerks and they had obtained the judgment from a Division Bench of this Court by misrepresentation etc. The 4 2025:HHC:6660 petitioners have further claimed that since they had been appointed as peons much before the appointment of respondents No. 3 to 5 as Chainman, they had the first right to be promoted as clerks and on such premise the petitioners have claimed to be promoted as clerks before the private respondents. 8. I have heard Mr. Rajeshwar Thakur, learned counsel for petitioner No.3 and Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2 and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 9. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 appear to have abandoned their claim as no one has been representing them since long. 10. The name of respondent No.3 has also been deleted from array of the respondents vide order dated 21.11.2022 on the statement of the learned counsel for petitioner No.3. It was stated that the grievance against respondent No.3 did not survive. 11. Respondents No. 4 and 5 have already been proceeded against exparte. 5 2025:HHC:6660 12. Further, all the petitioners and private respondents are stated to have retired from services. 13. The first objection of petitioners cannot be sustained for the reasons that the private respondents were appointed as Clerks vide office order dated 14.11.2011 in compliance to judgment dated 27.10.2010 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP(T) No. 3845 of 2008 and other connected matters. The official-respondents were under direction vide aforesaid judgment to consider the case of respondents No. 3 to 5 in light of an earlier judgment passed by this Court in the case titled Ramesh Chand vs. State of H.P., CWP(T) No. 3688 of 2008. The official respondents on consideration of the matter found the cases of respondents No. 3 to 5 to be identically placed as that of Ramesh Chand i.e. the petitioner in CWP(T) No. 3688 of 2008, therefore, the orders to appoint respondents No. 3 to 5 as Clerks were issued. 14. Indisputably, the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 27.10.2010 in CWP(T) No. 3845 of 2008 and connected matters, has attained finality. Even by way of instant petition, the petitioners have not been able to 6 2025:HHC:6660 show as to how the office order dated 14.11.2011 whereby respondents No. 3 to 5 were appointed as Clerks was bad in law. No material has been placed on record to suggest that the cases of respondents No. 3 to 5 were not identical to the petitioner in CWP(T) No. 3688 of 2008. It is also not a case of malafide pleaded or established by the petitioners against the official-respondents. 15. As regards the other objection of petitioners, it is clear from the reply of official respondents that as per R & P Rules for the post of clerks, the petitioners were entitled to be promoted as Clerks under 10% quota available in the promotional channel from the feeder category of Peons. It has further been revealed that in the year 2011 the person holding seniority position No.32 in the seniority list of Peons was promoted to the post of Clerk. The petitioners were having seniority position Nos. 46, 55 and 87 respectively. Thus, the petitioners could not be promoted as clerks in the year 2011. It has further been revealed during the course of hearing that the petitioners were subsequently promoted as Clerks and petitioner No.3, who is now prosecuting the instant case alone, was promoted as Clerk in the year 2016. 7 2025:HHC:6660 16. Thus, the petitioners are not justified in alleging discrimination vis a vis the private respondents who were appointed as clerks on altogether different considerations, as noticed above. On the other hand, the petitioners had right to be considered for promotion to the post of clerk strictly in terms of applicable R & P Rules on the basis of seniority in the feeder category of peons, which right of the petitioners has been upheld by promoting them as clerks on their respective turns. 17. View from another angle also, the claim of petitioners deserves rejection as they cannot claim negative parity. On one hand petitioners have challenged the appointment of private respondents as being illegal and on the other have claimed the same treatment. 18. In light of above discussion, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. 19. Petition is accordingly disposed of so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. 19th March, 2025 (Satyen Vaidya) (GR) Judge