128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS SATISH KUMAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present Mr.Aman Bahri, Addl. Standing Counsel, and Ms. Shubreet Kaur, Junior Panel Counsel, for * ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA 1. Pursuant to the order passed occasion, the concerned unconditional apology. careful in future. 2. This Writ Petition is directed against order dated passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) OA No.204 of 2021 whereby the Tribunal of seniority made for the Constables 3. The Tribunal has noticed the facts of the case according to which the original seniority was settled way back in 198 come to the conclusion t justified in re prospects of others have retired. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS V SATISH KUMAR AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr.Aman Bahri, Addl. Standing Counsel, and Ms. Shubreet Kaur, Junior Panel Counsel, for the petitioners-U.T., Chandigarh **** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral) Pursuant to the order passed by this Court occasion, the concerned Clerk/Dealing Assistant has submitted an unconditional apology. We accept the same and careful in future. This Writ Petition is directed against order dated passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) OA No.204 of 2021 whereby the Tribunal h of seniority made for the Constables in 2020. The Tribunal has noticed the facts of the case according to which the original seniority was settled way back in 198 me to the conclusion that after 32 years, the employer re-opening the issue of seniority so as to unsettle the service others, who in between have been promoted and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-15130-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21st July, 2025 UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS ..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. .....Respondent(s) ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA KULDEEP TIWARI Mr.Aman Bahri, Addl. Standing Counsel, and Ms. Shubreet Kaur, Junior Panel Counsel, U.T., Chandigarh. by this Court on the previous Dealing Assistant has submitted an We accept the same and expect him to be more This Writ Petition is directed against order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in has interfered with the revision The Tribunal has noticed the facts of the case according to which the original seniority was settled way back in 1988. The Tribunal has hat after 32 years, the employer would not be issue of seniority so as to unsettle the service who in between have been promoted and many of them SURESH KUMAR 2025.07.24 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15130-2025 (O&M) 4. Learned counsel for the p seniority list drawn in the year 198 5. Be that as it may, we are not persuaded to interfere with the impugned judgment case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and Others Others; 2010(12) SCC 471 interfered with is reproduced as under: “ emerges is that once the seniority had been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not be entertained. crystal clear words that a seniority list which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period, explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum, by furnishing satisfactory explanation. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the such issue is 3 to 4 years but a period of delay to be condoned. of the petitioners in unsettling such 7. Therefore, we find no force in the present Writ Petition and the same is accordingly 2025 (O&M) Learned counsel for the petitioners states that even the original drawn in the year 1988 was not in accordance with the Rules. Be that as it may, we are not persuaded to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal in view of the Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and Others 2010(12) SCC 471 that long standing with. The relevant extract of the judgment of the Supreme Court is reproduced as under:- “29. Thus, in view of the above, the settled legal proposition that emerges is that once the seniority had been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not be entertained. In K.R. Mudgal (supra), this Court has crystal clear words that a seniority list which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period, explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum, by furnishing satisfactory explanation.” In view of the aforesaid, the usual period for examination such issue is 3 to 4 years but a period of 32 years would be too much of a to be condoned. The Tribunal has correctly interfered with the action of the petitioners in unsettling such a long standing seniority. Therefore, we find no force in the present Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. etitioners states that even the original was not in accordance with the Rules. Be that as it may, we are not persuaded to interfere with the of the Tribunal in view of the well settled law in the Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and Others Vs. State of Orissa and standing seniority ought not to be The relevant extract of the judgment of the Supreme Court 29. Thus, in view of the above, the settled legal proposition that emerges is that once the seniority had been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not (supra), this Court has laid down, in crystal clear words that a seniority list which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed. Thus, 3-4 years is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period, he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum, by usual period for examination of 32 years would be too much of a The Tribunal has correctly interfered with the action long standing seniority. Therefore, we find no force in the present Writ Petition and the SURESH KUMAR 2025.07.24 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15130-2025 (O&M) 8. All pending applications accordingly. July 21, 2025 Ess Kay Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 2025 (O&M) All pending applications, if any, [ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA [KULDEEP TIWARI 2025 Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : , if any, in this case are disposed of ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA] JUDGE [KULDEEP TIWARI] JUDGE : Yes / No : Yes / No SURESH KUMAR 2025.07.24 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document