( 2025:HHC:35169 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No.132 of 2024 Decided on: 8.10.2025 Tulsi Ram ......Appellant Versus HPTDC Ltd. & Others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Shivank Singh Panta, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Abhinav Mohan Goel, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice(Oral) Consideration is sought of the order passed by learned Single Judge, in CWPOA No. 6961 of 2019, decided on 01.03.2024. Learned Single Judge repelled the challenge as to the order dated 29.02.2016 (Annexure A-1) passed by respondent No.2 and also declined the prayer whereby directions were sought to make promotions on the basis of earlier order dated 05.12.2015 (Annexure A-5), on the basis of 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:35169 ) earlier Departmental Promotion Committee for the post of Commi-II. 2. The counsel for the appellant sought to argue that Recruitment and Promotions Rules as such provided that merit-cum-seniority was to be seen and, therefore, he having an outstanding ACR had been earlier, while being promoted on 05.12.2015 had been placed at serial No.1 as a Commi-II in the pay band of Rs.10300-34800+3200 GP on regular basis. It was his case that by holding the review DPC on 23.02.2016 (Annexure R-3/4), the respondents as such had faulted by tinkering with the list as such, whereby he was then shown at serial No.3, whereas the contesting respondent-Om Prakash was pushed up at serial No.1 from the earlier position at serial No. 2. Reliance is placed upon the order of regularization dated 22.10.2011 (Annexure R-3/2), wherein the Commi-III employees working on ad hoc basis, who were regularized, in which the name of appellant figured at serial No. 26, whereas the private respondents, Om Parkash and Krishan Lal figured at serial Nos.13 & 16. It is accordingly contended that once they were as such regularized on 22.10.2011, whereby all had been similarly placed as such, therefore, the outstanding grade as such could entitle him for placement at a higher position. 3. In contrast, the argument raised as such by the counsels for the Corporation and the private respondent is that ( 2025:HHC:35169 ) seniority list of Commi-III was duly circulated on 02.05.2012 on the basis of regularization, wherein private respondents were shown at serial Nos.39 and 42 respectively. Om Prakash & Krishan Lal, having been promoted way back on 18.03.2006 and 20.11.2006, whereas the present appellant had been only promoted on 10.08.2010 and had been shown at serial No. 51. It is submitted that at no point of time, the seniority list had been challenged and, therefore, he had accepted the seniority. He has accordingly submitted that there was a rectification done by holding a review Departmental Promotion Committee on 23.2.2016, which was given effect to on 29.2.2016 to adjust and restore the placement and seniority, and, therefore, there is no fault as such and the order of promotion was not tinkered with and there is no vested right as such keeping in view the seniority list shown him far junior at serial No.51. 4. It is also the contention that the review Departmental Promotion Committee has also relied upon and the learned Single Judge also relied upon Handbook on Personnel Matters, Volume I, Chapter XVI, Clause 16.35 that if the difference of length of service in the feeder grade between the two officers is not more than two years, then the officer assessed as ‘outstanding’ will supersede the officer assessed as ‘very good’ only. It is thus pointed out that in the feeder cadre of Commi-III, the appointment of the private respondents was ( 2025:HHC:35169 ) in the year 2006 as noticed above and the appellant himself was only appointed on 10.08.2010, therefore, the seniors have to be protected on that aspect. It is settled principle that the issue of seniority has to be raised at the outset. Law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court initially in P.S. Sadasiva Swamy Vs. State of Tamilnadu 1975 (1) SCC 152 and followed consistently thereafter in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra Vs State of Orissa 2011(1) RSJ 624 and State of Uttar Pardesh Vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava 2015(1) SCC 347. 5. The seniority list was then circulated on 02.05.2012 after the regularization on 22.10.2011. The petitioner had never questioned the seniority list and only on account of promotion granted and the placement at serial No.1 on 05.12.2015, he got a cause of action as such. 6. Now, the argument raised that the promotion of the private respondents on ad hoc basis as Commi-III is not liable to be sustained since the said seniority list was never challenged for these long years. The regularization had taken place way back in 2011 and the appellant had shown junior never agitated for his grievances at that stage. Even the order of the appellant of promotion himself on 10.08.2010 is not on record to show whether he had also got the benefit as such in the similar circumstances on ad hoc basis and, therefore, now ( 2025:HHC:35169 ) fresh argument sought to be raised in the instant Letters Patent Appeal would not be permissible. 7. Learned Single Judge has kept in mind the relevant rules in question and the guidelines as such apart from the fact that there was no challenge to the final seniority list of Commi-III. Cogent reasons have been given for justification for convening the review Departmental Promotion Committee, which has also been approved and the Handbook on Personnel Matters had also been referred to which is in principle only to give the benefit of outstanding reports to persons wherein a difference in service was less than two years. 8. As noticed initial appointment of the private respondent is way back in the year 2006, and as there is a difference of almost more than four years and in such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the cause, which is sought to be now made out by the appellant at this belated stage, would mitigate against the basic principle of service law, as it is settled that long drawn on seniorities are not to be unsettled at the hands of a indolent litigant. 9. Resultantly we do not find any plausible reason as such to allow the appeal and to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. ( 2025:HHC:35169 ) 10. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice October 8, 2025 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) (Mamta) Judge