( 2025:HHC:15920 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.964 of 2024 Decided on: 26th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Devi Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Surender Sharma and Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Pursuant to the decision rendered in Om Prakash and others Vs. State of H.P. and others2, respondents re-drew the seniority list and conferred all consequential benefits including monetary and promotional upon the petitioners in the said petition. Present petitioner, who is senior to the petitioners in the aforesaid case, also represented to the respondents for conferring the same 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 CWPOA No. 771 of 2019, decided on 10.08.2022 ( 2025:HHC:15920 ) - 2 - benefits upon him. The respondents have refused to grant him these benefits on the ground that the decision in Om Prakash2 was in personam and not rem. Petitioner feels aggrieved and hence has instituted this writ petition. 2. The case 2(i) Petitioner was appointed as Direct Kanungo candidate in the respondent-Revenue Department in District Mandi, H.P. on 13.05.1983. He completed two years Settlement Training in the year 1985. Consequent there upon, petitioner was appointed as Patwari for two years on 01.08.1985. He was confirmed as Kanungo on 01.04.1988. 2(ii) On 10.04.2008, petitioner was promoted as Naib Tehsildar, on ad-hoc basis for a period of six months. Such ad-hoc promotion of the petitioner as Naib Tehsildar was regularized on 18.06.2010. He was further promoted to the post of Tehsildar on ad-hoc basis on 31.08.2012. Petitioner was thereafter promoted as District Revenue Officer in April 2022. He retired from the service as District Revenue Officer on 31.05.2023. 2(iii) S/Sh. Om Prakash, Amar Singh and Om Chand, serving as Field Kanungos in District Mandi, instituted TA ( 2025:HHC:15920 ) - 3 - No.781 of 2015, re-registered as CWPOA No.771 of 2019, with the grievance that seniority list of Kanungos in District Mandi had been wrongly drawn by the respondents. They prayed for direction to the respondents to re-draw the seniority list of Kanungos by counting their service from the dates of their initial appointment, which in their case was 31.08.1987. 2(iv) The CWPOA No. 771 of 2019 was allowed by the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench on 10.08.2022. The gist of petitioners’ grievance as noticed in the judgment is as under:- “Petitioners have approached this Court, seeking direction to redraw the Seniority List of Kanungos in District Mandi, by assigning seniority to petitioners by counting their service since their initial appointment i.e. w.e.f. 31.01.1987, instead of counting their service for the purpose of seniority, from completion of Settlement/Revenue Training and passing of Departmental Examination.” While allowing the writ petition, it was inter alia held that:- 2(iv)(a) The judgment passed in CWP No.238 of 2000 (Devinder Singh Kalta Vs. State of H.P. and others) decided on 15.12.2006, had quashed and set aside the office order dated 03.09.1988, assigning the seniority to Kanungos of District Shimla on the basis of completion of training/passing of ( 2025:HHC:15920 ) - 4 - examination and Revenue Department was directed to re- draw the seniority list. The said judgment is equally applicable and binding in case of Kanungos of District Mandi. 2(iv)(b) Any instruction issued by State of Himachal Pradesh, contrary to the Court verdict, is not sustainable and liable to be ignored and quashed. 2(iv)(c) The instruction referred to by respondents State for rejecting the claim of petitioners/ Kanungos in District Mandi for re-drawing the seniority list by counting the service from the initial appointment, was contrary to the verdict in CWP No.238 of 2000, hence, all such instructions were liable to be quashed and, as such, are deemed to have been quashed and set aside. 2(iv)(d) The Government of Himachal Pradesh through Revenue Department is the employer of all Kanungos in the State. The Revenue Department was respondent in CWP No.238 of 2000. The petitioners appointed as Kanungos in District Mandi, were governed by one and the same set of Rules which were applicable to the Kanungos appointed in District Shimla. The Revenue Department had not issued any separate instructions for Kanungos serving in District Mandi ( 2025:HHC:15920 ) - 5 - or for that matter serving in different Districts of the State of Himachal Pradesh. 2(iv)(e) Respondent-Revenue Department had already been directed in CWP No. 238 of 2000 to assign seniority to the Kanungos from their initial date of appointment. The aforesaid verdict applied to Om Prakash2 as well. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi rejecting the representations was contrary to the directions issued in CWP No.238 of 2000. This was despite the fact that the Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh was respondent in CWP No.238 of 2000 as also in Om Prakash2 2(iv)(f) All Kanungos in State of Himachal Pradesh are governed by the same set of Rules, which are to be interpreted and implemented in uniform manner throughout the State of Himachal Pradesh. 2(iv)(g) The impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner Mandi, rejecting petitioners’ representation dated 10.06.2005 seeking to re-draw the seniority list, was quashed and set aside. ( 2025:HHC:15920 ) - 6 - In view of above, respondent-Revenue Department was directed to re-draw the seniority list of the Kanungos of District Mandi alongwith others in accordance with applicable Rules by assigning seniority to them from the dates of their initial appointments subject to completion of training and passing of examination. The Court further held that the petitioners had not been promoted to the next higher post(s) for no fault on their part, but on account of wrong seniority assigned to them, they were kept away by the authorities from their rightful post. Finding it to be a case where petitioners remained away from the work for the reasons attributable to the respondents, principle of ‘no work no pay’ was held not applicable. The petitioners therein, were held entitled for the consequential financial benefits from the due date on account of promotions, if any, on the basis of revised/redrawn seniority list. Relevant paras from the decision are as under: - “17. Employer of all Kanungos in the State, in various Districts, is Government of Himachal Pradesh, through Administrative Department, i.e. Revenue Department and State of Himachal Pradesh was respondent in all cases referred supra, including CWP No.238 of 2000. Petitioners though have been appointed Kaungos in District Mandi, but in the Revenue Department of ( 2025:HHC:15920 ) - 7 - Himachal Pradesh, like the Kanungos appointed in District Shimla. Kanungos of both the Districts are governed by one and the same Rules, i.e. Rules 1951. No separate instruction has been issued by the Revenue Department with respect to conditions of service of Kanungos serving in different Districts of the State of Himachal Pradesh. 18. The present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench, passed in CWP No.238 of 2000, which directs the respondents, to assign seniority to the Kanungos from their initial date of appointment. The rejection order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner Mandi after aforesaid verdict of Division Bench of this Court but contrary to the directions passed by the Court, despite the fact that Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh was representing the State in both cases, i.e. CWP No.238 of 2000 and CWP(T) No.2148 of 2008, as well as also in present case and despite that stand has been taken by the respondents that judgment passed in CWP No.238 of 2000 was in a case filed by a Kanungo of District Shimla. Such plea is not sustainable being completely misconceived. All Kanungos in the State of Himachal Pradesh are to be governed by Rules 1951, referred supra, and these Rules are to be interpreted and implemented in uniform manner throughout the State of Himachal Pradesh. 19. Accordingly, Order dated 14.12.2009/ 6.1.2010, passed by the Deputy Commissioner Mandi, rejecting representation dated 10.6.2005, is quashed and set aside, with direction to respondents No.1 and 2 to redraw the Seniority List, in reference, of the Kanungos of District Mandi alongwith others, as per Rule 12 of ( 2025:HHC:15920 ) - 8 - Rule 1951, by assigning seniority to the Kanungos from the date of initial appointment, but definitely subject to completion of training and passing of examination. 20. Since the petitioners have not been promoted to the next higher posts(s), for no fault on their part, but on account of wrong seniority assigned to them, they were kept away by authorities for no fault on their part, therefore, it is not a case where petitioners remained away from the work for their own reasons despite offer to them for performing the work but he was refrained on account of act of the employer. Therefore, as also, held by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. K.V Janki Raman case, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109, principle of ‘No Work no Pay’ is not applicable. Therefore, petitioners are also held entitled for consequential financial/ monetary benefits from due date on account of their promotion(s), if any. 21. Accordingly, petitioners shall also be entitled for all consequential benefits, including monetary benefits as well as other benefits, including promotion, accruing to them on the basis of revised/ redrawn Seniority List from the respective dates from which their immediate juniors have been conferred such benefits.” 2(v) Pursuant to the above decision, respondents carried out fresh exercise and issued tentative seniority list of Kanungos based upon the dates of their initial appointments. Objections were invited from the affected persons. The objections were decided and vide order dated 03.12.2012, seniority list of Kanungos in District Mandi was finalized. ( 2025:HHC:15920 ) - 9 - S/Sh. Om Prakash, Amar Chand and Om Chand figured at Sr. Nos. 12, 15 and 11, respectively, whereas, petitioner, figured at Sr. No.6 of the redrawn final seniority list of the Kanungos. The respondents, though re-drew the final seniority list of Kanungos in District Mandi, pursuant to the decision in Om Prakash2, but confined the release of consequential benefits including promotional and financial benefits to the petitioners in the aforesaid case. Present petitioner’s representation, seeking the consequential promotional and financial benefits on the basis of Om Prakash2 was declined by the respondents on 11.07.2023 (Annexure P-7). In the aforesaid background, petitioner has instituted this writ petition, seeking following substantive reliefs: - “(i) That the impugned Annexure-P7, communications dated 12.07.2023 and 31.08.2023, may kindly be quashed and set aside; (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner including the monetary benefits as well as promotional benefits after the issuance of final seniority list, vide Annexure- P6, dated 03.12.2022; (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay ( 2025:HHC:15920 ) - 10 - interest @ 9% per annum on the monetary benefits of the petitioner from the date of his entitlement till the date of its actual disbursement.” 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on both sides and considered the case file. 4. Consideration Respondents have refused to grant the consequential, promotional and monetary benefits to the petitioner on the basis of re-drawn seniority list of Kanungos citing that decision in Om Prakash2 was in personam, petitioner was not a party to the decision and his raising the grievance now suffers from delay and laches. 4(i) The decision in Om Prakash2 as extracted above makes it evident that it is a judgment in rem. It is not restricted to the petitioners in that case. The Coordinate Bench had given categorical findings that respondents were liable to re- draw the seniority list of Kanungos in District Mandi based upon the decision rendered in CWP No.238 of 2000; All the Kanungos in State of H.P. are governed by same set of Rules that are to be interpreted and implemented in uniform manner throughout the State of Himachal Pradesh; No distinction has been carved out by the Revenue Department ( 2025:HHC:15920 ) - 11 - with respect to conditions of service of Kanungos serving in different Districts of State of Himachal Pradesh; There was no occasion for the respondent-Revenue Department, a party in CWP No.238 of 2000, to interpret the Rules differently while drawing the seniority list of the Kanungos in District Mandi contrary to the verdict in CWP No.238/2000. Since the judgment was in rem, the respondents while implementing the judgment had re-drawn the final seniority list of all the Kannugos in District Mandi including that of the petitioner. Petitioner was at a higher pedestal than the petitioners in Om Prakash’s2 case in the redrawn final seniority list. The conclusion drawn in Om Prakash2 operate in rem. 4(ii) It will be appropriate to extract following principles summed up in State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others3 for applying the ratio of the judgments in rem vis-à-vis grant of consequential benefits to those not parties to the litigation as also delay & laches:- 3 (2015)1 SCC 347 ( 2025:HHC:15920 ) - 12 - “ 22.1 The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. 22.2 However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. 22.3 However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur ( 2025:HHC:15920 ) - 13 - when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.” The above decision was reiterated in Chairman/Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and others Vs. Ram Gopal4, which holds that the State and its instrumentalities are expected to themselves extend the benefit of a judicial pronouncement delivered in rem to all similarly placed employees without forcing each person to individually knock the doors of Courts. The Hon’ble Apex Court also considered the decision in Vijay Kumar Kaul and Others Vs. Union of India and Others5 wherein while considering the claim of candidates who despite being higher in merit exercised their right to parity much after those who were though lower in merit but 4 (2021)13 SCC 225 5 (2012) 7 SCC 610 ( 2025:HHC:15920 ) - 14 - were diligently agitating their right, it was held that:- “It becomes an obligation to take into consideration the balance of justice or injustice in entertaining the petition or declining it on the ground of delay and laches. It is a matter of great significance that at one point of time equity that existed in favour of one melts into total insignificance and paves the path of extinction with the passage of time.” The Hon’ble Apex Court held that above principles may not apply to judgments delivered in rem. State is expected in such category of cases to itself extend the benefit of a judicial pronouncement to all similarly placed employees without forcing them to individually knock the door of Courts. It would also beneficial to quote Union of India & Ors Vs. Tarsem Singh6, where irrespective of judgment being in rem or in personam, continuing wrongful action was held to an exception to rejection of belated service claims on ground of delay and laches. It was also held that “where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing 6 (2008)8 SCC 648 ( 2025:HHC:15920 ) - 15 - source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained.” In Lt. Col Suprita Cahndel Vs. Union of India and Ors7, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that where a citizen aggrieved by the action of the Government Department has approached the Court and obtained the declaration of law in his favour, the other similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to approach the Court. There is no justification to penalize the employees, who have not come to Court/for not having litigated, they too shall be entitled to the same benefit as the petitioner. In exceptional cases, where the Court has expressly prohibited the extension of benefit to those who have not approached the Court till then or in cases where grievance in personam is redressed, the matter may acquire different dimension and the Department would be justified in denying the relief to an individual who claims extension of the benefit of the said 7 Civil Appeal No. 1943 of 2022, decided on 09.12.2024 ( 2025:HHC:15920 ) - 16 - judgment. In cases where employer is not able to point out any valid justification as to how the petitioner is not identically situated with incumbents who had succeeded before the Court, the respondents are liable to grant same benefits to that petitioner as well. Petitioner’s case, in such situation, is founded on the principle of discrimination. What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: - “14. It is a well settled principle of law that where a citizen aggrieved by an action of the government department has approached the court and obtained a declaration of law in his/her favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to court. [See Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and Others, (1975) 4 SCC 714] 15. In K.I. Shephard and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1987) 4 SCC 431, this Court while reinforcing the above principle held as under:- “19. The writ petitions and the appeals must succeed. We set aside the impugned judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and direct that each of the three transferee banks should take over the excluded employees on the same terms and conditions of employment under the respective banking companies prior to amalgamation. The employees would be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service for all purposes including salary and perks throughout the period. We leave it open to the transferee banks to take such action as they consider proper against these employees in accordance with law. Some of the excluded employees have not come to court. There is no justification to penalise them for not having litigated. They too shall be entitled to the same benefits as the petitioners. ….” ( 2025:HHC:15920 ) - 17 - (Emphasis Supplied) 16 ……………………… 17. That is not the situation here. In the submissions too, the respondents have not been able to point out any valid justification as to how the applicants who obtained the benefit from the AFT, Principal Bench in OA No. 111 of 2013 and batch are not identically situated with the appellant. Like the applicants who succeeded, the appellant was also ripe for the third chance before the amended para 4(a) of AI No. 37 of 1978 was introduced on 20.03.2013. The Principal Bench of the AFT in OA No. 111 of 2013 after clearly holding that the applicants therein were denied the third chance directed consideration of their cases for permanent absorption by granting one-time age relaxation by considering them under the unamended policy. 18. ……………………….. 19. The stand of the Department relying on the judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra and Another vs. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and Others, (1981) 4 SCC 130 to contend that mere reduction in chance of consideration did not result in deprivation of any right does not appeal to us. The appellant’s case is founded on the principle of discrimination. What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander. If the applicants in O.A. No. 111 of 2013 whom we find are identically situated to the appellant were found to be eligible to be given a third chance for promotion, because they acquired eligibility before the amendment to AI No. 37 of 1978 on 20.03.2013, we find no reason why the appellant should not be treated alike. 20 to 22……………………………… ( 2025:HHC:15920 ) - 18 - 23. We hold that the appellant was wrongly excluded from consideration when other similarly situated officers were considered and granted permanent commission. Today, eleven years have elapsed. It will not be fair to subject her to the rigors of the 2013 parameters as she is now nearly 45 years of age. There has been no fault on the part of the appellant.” In Union of India and others Vs. Munshi Ram8, it was held that there cannot be different criteria/parameters with respect to similarly situated employees working under the same employer. All such employees are required to be treated similar & equally and are entitled to the similar benefits & same treatment. There cannot be any discrimination between the same set of employees. 4(iii) It would also be in place to refer to following order passed in this case on 19.05.2025 to ascertain as to whether grant of consequential benefits to the petitioner based upon Om Prakash2 would adversely affect any third party rights: - “Reply filed by the respondents does not seem to have reflected the stand of respondent No.2, even though it is stated to have been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. Sh. Ashok Kumar, Naib Sadar Kanungo, office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, who is present in the Court, expresses his inability to render any assistance 8 Civil Appeal No. 2811 of 2022 decided on 31.10.2022 ( 2025:HHC:15920 ) - 19 - in the matter on the ground that it is respondent No.2’s office, which has dealt with the case of the petitioners in CWPOA No.771 of 2019, pursuant to its decision on 10.08.2022. The mode and manner of implementation of the aforesaid decision has also not come forth from the documents on record. Confronted with above, learned Deputy Advocate General again seeks an adjournment. At her request, list on 26.05.2025, when officials conversant with the case from offices of respondents No.2 and 3 shall remain present in the Court alongwith record.” Pursuant thereto, Sh. Sanjay Kumar (Sr. Assistant), Sh. Vijay Kumar (Clerk) and Sh. Ashok Kumar (Kanungo) from the office of respondents No. 2 and 3 had attended the hearing alongwith record. The officers/officials have apprised that in view of Om Prakash2 respondents had re-drawn the seniority list of the Kanungos in District Mandi and on the basis of the said list, have given consequential, promotional and financial benefits to three petitioners in Om Prakash2 case. All promotions and monetary benefits on the basis of said re-drawn seniority list were given to the petitioners in the said case as none else was adversely affected by the implementation of the aforesaid decision in case of the petitioners therein. To a query of the Court as to whether any ( 2025:HHC:15920 ) - 20 - employee would be affected in case the present petitioner is also granted the same benefits as have been granted to the petitioners in Om Prakash2 case, the answer was in the negative. It was informed by the above officers/ officials that none would be affected in case the present petitioner is also granted all consequential promotional and financial benefits on the basis of decision rendered in Om Prakash2. 4(iv) During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that respondents have not only discriminated the present petitioner vis-à-vis the petitioners in Om Prakash2 case in denying him the benefits flowing from the decision, but also treated him unequally vis-à-vis similarly situated one Sh. Mittar Dev. That all consequential benefits including promotional and monetary have been given to one Sh. Mittar Dev, who was also not a party in Om Prakash2 case. The officers present in the Court have not denied this assertion and submitted that Sh. Mittar Dev had represented for release of benefits on the basis of re-drawn seniority list, the same was accordingly released to him. 5. The judgment in Om Prakash2 was in rem and based upon a previous judgment on the subject. The ( 2025:HHC:15920 ) - 21 - conclusions drawn thereunder were also applicable to the petitioner, who was similarly placed as the petitioners in Om Prakash2 . Respondents after re-drawing the seniority list of Kanungos in District Mandi, including that of petitioner on the basis of directions issued in aforesaid judgment, gave consequential benefits only to the petitioners in the said case. Petitioner, senior to the petitioners in Om Prakash2, is also entitled to consequential benefits on the basis of re-drawn seniority list, more so, when grant of such benefits will not adversely impact any other incumbent. In view of discussion in para-4 above, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to grant the consequential benefits to the petitioner including promotional and financial based upon redrawn seniority list of Kanungos dated 03.12.2022 within a period of six weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 26, 2025 R.Atal