IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.21146 of 2025 Decided on: 02.01.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dev Raj and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 6. Mr. K.S.Banyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Uday Singh Banyal, Advocate for respondent No.7. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioners are retired employees of Police Department. They have filed this writ petition claiming following substantive reliefs:- “i) That the writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued for quashing the Annexure P-24 (18.08.2025), wherein DIG (TTR) under his Chairmanship has recommended for common seniority of all cadres, thereby , ignoring the order of separate seniority/separate cadres, so passed on 28.10.2022 (Annexure P-19) under the 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Chairmanship of IG (PATR), in the interest of law and justice. ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ may also be issued thereby directing the respondents No. 1 to 5 to continue with final seniority lists & promotion orders already issued from time to time in their favour, when the same have not been challenged by any incumbent either from the Technicians side or from the operators side etc. till date, in the interest of law and justice. iii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may also be issued directing the respondents to continue with verdict given by this Hon’ble Court dated 27.04.2012 in CWP No.6599/2010 and even in their earlier CWP No.2738/2009, when the petitioners have been given promotion in their cadre from time to time, in the interest of law and justice. iv) That the respondents may be directed not to use the word Directorate of CTS, when this notification has not been issued (Annexure P-6 RTI information) as has also been observed in the judgment dated 27.04.2012, in the interest of law and justice.” 2. Petitioners basic grievance is directed against Annexure P-24 dated 18.08.2025. The aforesaid document contains proceedings of meeting of Board of Officers conducted on 08.08.2025 and 12.08.2025 on the subject “for examining the manpower/sanctioned strength of C& TS cadre & amendment in R & P rules.” 3. Confronted with the question that Annexure P-24 only contains proceedings of meeting of Board of Officers and there is no document on record to show the 3 recommendations of the aforesaid committee having been translated into some effective order, learned counsel for the petitioners during hearing of the case on 01.01.2026 placed on record an office memorandum dated 21.11.2025 circulating provisional seniority list of Assistant Sub-Inspector (C& TS) as it stood on 28.06.2020. Petitioners grievances as projected now, are that after their retirement, their seniority placements have been adversely affected in the aforesaid office memorandum which may entail some other consequences including adverse financial implication & impact upon already earned promotions etc. 4. Petitioners grievances at present are all in realm of speculation. The seniority list circulated under the office memorandum dated 21.11.2025 is only provisional. As per endorsement in the office memorandum, the said provisional seniority list was to be circulated to the concerned quarters inviting representations. Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record office instructions dated 01.01.2026 from the respondent No.2 conveying that respondent department did not receive any objections from 4 petitioners against the above referred provisional seniority list. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are retired employees. The provisional seniority list dated 21.11.2025 was never circulated to them. They became aware of the provisional seniority list dated 21.11.20205 only after filing of the writ petition and during hearing of this case on 01.01.2026. The provisional seniority list adversely affects the petitioners, they bonafidely apprehend that benefits already received by them during service may be withdrawn from them years after their retirement pursuant to the exercise now being undertaken by the respondents. In view of the submissions made for the petitioners and the position emerging from the office instructions dated 01.01.2026, and considering the fact that provisional seniority list of ASI (C& TS) has not yet been finalized, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioners to represent against the office memorandum dated 21.11.20205 circulating the provisional seniority list of ASI (C& TS) within a period of one week; In case such representation is so preferred to the competent 5 authority, the same shall be deemed to have been made within the time prescribed under said office memorandum and it shall be decided in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter and before finalizing the seniority list. Ordered accordingly. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Janaury 02, 2026 Judge yogesh