( 2026:HHC:19752 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No.57 of 2019 Decided on: 22ndMay, 2026 Parveen Gupta ....Petitioner versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr.Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr.Onkar Jairath, Ms. Neha Thakur and Mr.Piyush Mehta, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr.Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Nitin Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.3. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner, by way of present petition, has laid challenge to the final combined seniority list of Junior Engineers (Civil) dated 09.12.2015 (Annexure A-12) wherein the petitioner has been shown at Seniority No. 327 instead of 326 and respondent No.3 has been shown at Seniority No.326 instead of Seniority No.327 and in the final seniority list of Junior Engineer (Civil) dated 09.12.2015 (Annexure A-13), possessing Diploma/ITI certificate/AMIE/B.E./B.Tech./ 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2026:HHC:19752 ) 2 appointment in service/ joining service at seniority No.118 instead of 117 and respondent No.3 at Seniority No.117 instead of 118 and thereafter Notification has been issued on 08.10.2016 (Annexure A-14), wherein the petitioner has been shown to be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Class-I (Gazetted) in the pay scale/pay band of Rs.15600- 39100 plus Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- on regular basis w.e.f. 31.12.2011 who was promoted on 31.12.2008 and respondent No.3 has been shown to be promoted on 31.12.2008. 2. The undisputed facts, which emerge from the pleadings, are that petitioner and respondent No.3 being qualified to hold the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) were appointed on 27.10.1995. Later on, as per decision taken by the State Government, those Junior Engineers (Civil) who had completed seven years of continuous contract service in the Department and were fulfilling the conditions as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules of Junior Engineer (Civil) I&PH were appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) on regular basis on 19.06.2004 (Annexure A-4). Respondent No.3 was shown at Serial No.5 and the petitioner at Serial No.18. The respondents-State issued the final seniority list of Junior ( 2026:HHC:19752 ) 3 Engineers (Civil) as on 31.12.2005 (Annexure A-5) and respondent No.3 was shown at Serial No.547 and petitioner at Serial No.548. 3. The petitioner being shown junior to respondent No.3 had made a representation, which was considered by the competent authority and addendum was issued on 10.10.1997 (Annexure A-7) and the seniority position of the petitioner which was earlier fixed as Seniority No.548 was changed and shown as 542-A i.e. after Shri Rajesh Kumar and column No.4 academic/technical qualification be read as matric, diploma in Civil Engineering (batch 1986-89) & B.E (Civil) May, 1992. Thereafter, final seniority list of Junior Engineers (Civil) working in the respondents-Department was issued on 29.12.2009 (Annexure A-8) and the petitioner was shown at Serial No.544 and respondent No.3 was shown at serial No.548 (page 61). Thereafter the final seniority list was again issued after the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.1358 of 2009, titled, S.S. Kutlehria vs. State of H.P and others on 23.08.2010 (Annexure A-9) and in this seniority list, the petitioner was shown at Serial No.163 and respondent No.3 at Serial No.164. Again as per Notification dated 28.07.2011 (Annexure A-10), the petitioner was ( 2026:HHC:19752 ) 4 promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer and was shown at Serial No.40 and respondent No.3 at Serial No.41 and the date of promotion of the petitioner and respondent No.3 was shown w.e.f. 31.12.2008. Thereafter, the provisional seniority list of Junior Engineers (Civil) as on 31.12.2011 (Annexure P- 11) was issued and in this list, the petitioner was shown at Seniority No.326 and respondent No.3 at 327. However, when final seniority list of Junior Engineers as it stood on 31.12.2014 was issued, the petitioner who was earlier shown in Seniority No.326 was shown at Serial No.327 and respondent No.3 who was shown at Serial No.327 was shown at Serial No.326, against which the petitioner is aggrieved. Thereafter, another final combined seniority list of Junior Engineers (Civil) was issued on the same day, Annexure A-13, wherein the petitioner was shown at Seniority No.118 and respondent No.3 who was shown on that position was shown at Seniority No.117. Thereafter, vide Notification dated 03.10.2016, the petitioner was shown to be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 31.12.2011 and respondent No.3 w.e.f. 31.12.2008. 4. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the petitioner was shown senior to respondent No.3 ( 2026:HHC:19752 ) 5 after deciding his representation and issued addendum on 10.10.2007 (Annexure A-7). Thereafter final seniority list having been issued, his seniority position could not have been altered vide orders dated 09.12.2015 after 8 years of rectifying the seniority and showing him to be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 31.12.2011 whereas he was promoted to the said post w.e.f. 31.12.2008 and his promotion was never assailed by any person, including respondent No.3, who admittedly was shown junior to him in the seniority list. 5. The petitioner has also placed on record the Notification dated 05.06.2004 (Annexure A-2), which is the Rules called “Himachal Pradesh Department of Irrigation & Public Health Department, Junior Engineer (Civil) Class-III (Non-Gazetted) Technical Services, Recruitment and Promotion Rules (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2004 and as per these Rules, the appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) were to be made by four modes i.e. (i) 42% by direct recruitment through the concerned recruiting agency; (ii) 22% by direct recruitment on batch-wise basis at Department level and; (iii) 21% by appointment from amongst the candidates who were/are appointed on contract basis by the Department ( 2026:HHC:19752 ) 6 by adopting proper procedure and who possesses requisite professional qualification from recognized Technical Institutions having 7 years of continuous contract service in Himachal Pradesh Irrigation & Public Health Department, if their performance and conduct during service has been found satisfactory. Proviso has been added in these Rules that for the purpose of appointment under this Sub Clause (iii), the year wise combined seniority list shall be prepared wherein the candidate senior in batch in such recruitment year shall be reckoned senior to the candidate who has obtained diploma in Civil Engineering in subsequent batch and (iv) 15% by promotion. 6. It has been averred in the petition that as per provisional seniority list of Junior Engineers (Civil) as on 31.12.2014, the name of petitioner was figuring at Serial No.326, whereas respondent No.3 was at Serial No.327 and further the petitioner was shown senior to respondent No.3 rightly as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules and the communication dated 09.12.2015 showing respondent No.3 above him, is without giving him any opportunity of being heard. Since the seniority is valuable right of a Government employee, which cannot be altered without complying with ( 2026:HHC:19752 ) 7 the principles of natural justice, the seniority list could not have been altered without hearing him. Not only this, subsequent Notification was issued on 08.10.2016 (Annexure A-14), wherein his date of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) has been shown w.e.f. 31.12.2011, whereas he was promoted to the said post w.e.f. 31.12.2008. The action on the part of the respondents-State in doing so is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory besides violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has further been averred that the respondents-State have wrongly and illegally mis-directed themselves by invoking the principles laid down by this Court in S.S. Kutlehria’s case. In that case, the controversy pertained to the Graduate Junior Engineers, who have improved the technical qualification after joining the service, whereas that preposition is not at all attracted in the present case as the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 had joined after having acquired the qualification of B.E. (Civil). 7. The respondents-State filed reply to the petition and averred that the seniority position of respondent No.3 and the petitioner was fixed at Seniority No.547 and 548 respectively in the seniority list of J.E. (Civil) circulated by the respondent-Department vide Annexure A-5 and respondent ( 2026:HHC:19752 ) 8 No.3 was placed senior to him as it stood on 31.12.2005. However, the said position was un-settled on the representation received from the petitioner for fixing his seniority as per the date of passing the Diploma in Civil Engineering, which was inadvertently considered by the respondents-Department. The fact remains that the petitioner was Graduate in Civil Engineering before joining as Junior Engineer (Civil) on contract basis. Therefore, his contention to fix his seniority as per the Diploma in Civil Engineering was of no consequence and was not required to be considered. The representation was considered inadvertently, which stands rectified while implementing the judgment passed by this Court in S.S. Kutlehria’s case and the representations received from respondent No.3 and one Sh. Basant Singh were considered and the seniority position as is fixed and reflected now is as per rules and law. It has been averred that the petitioner had done his Graduation in Civil Engineering before joining his services as Junior Engineer (Civil), therefore, he has been considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer against the quota meant for Graduate Engineers. Had he been considered and assigned seniority as Diploma Holder Junior Engineer, he would not ( 2026:HHC:19752 ) 9 have been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer even by now against the quota meant for Diploma holder Junior Engineers. The petitioner had earlier filed the petition praying for the same relief which petition was disposed of on 31.03.2011 directing the same to be treated as representation and respondent No.1 considered his representation and did not find any merit in the contention and decided accordingly. Therefore, the petition seeking same relief is not maintainable. 8. Respondent No.3 filed reply to the petition and averred that the mistake committed by assigning seniority to the petitioner was rectified, which action is perfectly legal. It has been averred that the date of initial appointment of the petitioner as Junior Engineer was 27.10.1995, whereas his date of appointment was 21.10.1995. It has further been averred that the date of birth of the petitioner is 22.02.1970, whereas his date of birth is 15.07.1967, so by virtue of elder in age, he has to be ranked senior to the petitioner. Therefore, there was no illegality committed by the respondents-State and final seniority list which stood as on 31.12.2005 and thereafter orders passed vide Annexure A-12 to Annexure A- ( 2026:HHC:19752 ) 10 14, rectifying the mistake earlier committed is perfectly legal and valid. 9. I have heard Mr.Dilip Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate representing the petitioner, Mr. Amandeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr.Nitin Thakur, learned counsel representing respondent No.3. The record has also been perused carefully. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and respondent No.3 were appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) and at that time both of them were having the qualification of Bachelor of Engineering (Civil). The petitioner before acquiring the qualification of Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) had done his Diploma in Civil Engineering in 1989. Both the petitioner and respondent No.3 were regularized as per office order dated 19.06.2004 (Annexure A-4). Thereafter, the final seniority list of Junior Engineers (Civil) as on 31.12.2005 (Annexure A-5) was issued wherein the petitioner was shown at Serial No.548 and respondent No.3 at Serial No.547. It is also not in dispute that after receipt of the representation, the respondents-State had issued addendum on 10.10.1997 (Annexure A-7), when the seniority position, which was earlier ( 2026:HHC:19752 ) 11 assigned to the petitioner as 548 was changed to Seniority No.542-A. Thereafter, when the final seniority list of Junior Engineers (Civil) working in the respondents-State was issued, as it stood on 31.12.2008, the petitioner was shown at Serial No.544 and respondent No.3 was shown at Serial No.548. Thereafter, when the final seniority list was issued on 23.08.2010 (Annexure A-9), the petitioner was shown at Serial No.163 and respondent No.3 at Serial No.164. Even when the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 were promoted as Assistant Engineers, both of them have been shown to be promoted w.e.f. 31.12.2008, as is evident from the perusal of Notification dated 28.07.2011 (Annexure A-10). Even as per provisional seniority list of Junior Engineers (Civil) as on 31.12.2014, the petitioner was shown at Serial No.326 and respondent No.3 was shown at Serial No.327. For the first time, the seniority position of the petitioner was altered when communication dated 09.12.2015 was issued vide orders Annexure A-12 and Annexure A-13 of the same date. Once the petitioner was assigned senior in the seniority w.e.f. 31.12.2008 till the issuance of tentative seniority list as on 31.12.2014 and respondent No.3 assigned below him, even if the petitioner was shown wrongly senior to respondent ( 2026:HHC:19752 ) 12 No.3, the said position could not have been altered, that too, without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner. The stand taken by the respondents in the reply that the petitioner was shown junior to respondent No.3 as per Annexure A-5 in the final seniority list of Junior Engineers (Civil) as it stood on 31.12.2005, cannot be accepted for the reason that after making the representation, the respondents- State had rectified the mistake and issued the addendum on 10.10.1997 (Annexure A-7). No doubt, as per addendum dated 10.10.1997, the same was not addressed to respondent No.3. However, when the final seniority list was issued as it stood on 31.12.2008, respondent No.3 did not challenge the assigning of the seniority of the petitioner above him. Not only this, even when subsequently the final seniority list was issued on 23.08.2010, the petitioner was shown above respondent No.3 and even at that point of time, he did not rake up the issue of assigning him wrong position and the petitioner having been shown above him. It is also clear from the record that before issuing the impugned communications/orders dated 09.12.2015 vide Annexure A- 12 and Annexure A-13, the petitioner was not heard in the matter. Not only this, even when the Notification dated ( 2026:HHC:19752 ) 13 08.10.2016 (Annexure A-14) was issued showing the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 31.12.2011, whereas he was promoted to the said post on 31.12.2008, no opportunity of being heard was given to him. 11. As already held above, even if the petitioner was wrongly assigned the seniority, the same cannot be altered after a long time. In the present case, the petitioner once having been shown in the seniority above respondent No.3, if respondent No.3 was aggrieved by the said seniority, he ought to have challenged the same within a reasonable time of 3 to 4 years, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and others vs. State of Orissa and others (2010) 12 SCC 471. The relevant paras of the judgment read as under: “18. The question of entertaining the petition disputing the long standing seniority filed at a belated stage is no more res integra. A Constitution Bench of this Court, in Ramchandra Shanker Deodhar. v. State of Maharashtraconsidered the effect of delay in challenging the promotion and seniority list and held that any claim for seniority at a belated stage should be rejected inasmuch as it seeks to disturb the vested rights of other persons regarding seniority, rank and promotion which have accrued to them during the intervening period. A party should approach the Court just after accrual of the cause of complaint. While deciding the said case, this Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgments, particularly in Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, wherein it has been observed that the principle, on which the Court proceeds in ( 2026:HHC:19752 ) 14 refusing relief to the petitioner on the ground of laches or delay, is that the rights, which have accrued to others by reason of delay in filing the writ petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for delay. The Court further observed as under (Tilokchand case, SCC p.115, para 7):- "7. A party claiming fundamental rights must move the Court before others' rights come out into existence. The action of the Courts cannot harm innocent parties if their rights emerge by reason of delay on the part of person moving the Court." 19. This Court in Ramchandra Shanker Deodhar case also placed reliance upon its earlier judgment of the Constitution Bench in R.N. Bose v. Union of India, wherein it has been observed as under Rabindranath Bose case SCC p.97, para 33):- "33….It would be unjust to deprive the respondents of the rights which have accrued to them. Each person ought to be entitled to sit back and consider that his appointment and promotion effected a long time ago would not be defeated after the number of years." 20. In R.S. Makashi v. I.M. Menon, this Court considered all aspects of limitation, delay and laches in filing the writ petition in respect of inter se seniority of the employees. The Court referred to its earlier judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Bhailal Bhai, wherein it has been observed that the maximum period fixed by the Legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a Civil Court must be brought, may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution can be measured. The Court observed as under (R.S. Makashi case SCC pp. 398-400, paras 28 & 30:- "28…..’33…..We must administer justice in accordance with law and principle of equity, justice and good conscience. It would be unjust to deprive the respondents of the rights which have accrued to them. Each person ought to be entitled to sit back and consider that his appointment and promotion effected a long time ago would not be set-aside after the lapse of a number of years..... * * * ( 2026:HHC:19752 ) 15 30. The petitioners have not furnished any valid explanation whatever for the inordinate delay on their part in approaching the Court with the challenge against the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of 1968... We would accordingly hold that the challenge raised by the petitioners against the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of 02.03.1968 ought to have been rejected by the High Court on the ground of delay and laches and the writ petition, in so far as it related to the prayer for quashing the said Government resolution, should have been dismissed." 21. The issue of challenging the seniority list, which continued to be in existence for a long time, was again considered by this Court in K.R. Mudgal & Ors. v. R.P. Singh. The Court held as under (SCC pp.532 & 536, paras 2 to 7):- "2…..A government servant who is appointed to any post ordinarily should at least after a period of 3 or 4 years of his appointment be allowed to attend to the duties attached to his post peacefully and without any sense of insecurity......... * * * 7….Satisfactory service conditions postulate that there shall be no sense of uncertainty amongst the Government servants created by writ petitions filed after several years as in this case. It is essential that any one who feels aggrieved by the seniority assigned to him, should approach the Court as early as possible otherwise in addition to creation of sense of insecurity in the mind of Government servants, there shall also be administrative complication and difficulties.... In these circumstances we consider that the High Court was wrong in rejecting the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents to the writ petition on the ground of laches." (emphasis added) 12. In the present case, the seniority was assigned to the petitioner on 10.10.2007 and thereafter final seniority list was issued on 31.12.2008, depicting therein the petitioner senior to respondent No.3, which came to be altered only ( 2026:HHC:19752 ) 16 when communications dated 09.12.2005 (Annexure A-12 and A-13) have been issued, which cannot be done by the respondents-State, that too, without hearing the petitioner after more than six years. 13. The Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.6808 of 2022, titled, Khem Chand Verma and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, decided on 14.05.2024 has held that seniority is a civil right which has an important and vital role to play in one's service career; future promotion of a Government servant depends either on strict seniority or on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority etc.; seniority once settled is decisive in the upward march in one's chosen work or calling and gives certainty and assurance and boosts the morale to do quality work. It has further been observed that seniority instills confidence, spreads harmony and commands respect among colleagues, which is a paramount factor for good and sound administration, and if settled seniority at the instance of one's junior in service is unsettled, it will generate bitterness, resentment, hostility among the Government servants and the enthusiasm to do quality work might be lost. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:- ( 2026:HHC:19752 ) 17 “38. Admittedly, the petitioners had been promoted to the posts of Kanungos on 08.03.2017, 31.03.2017 & 24.04.2017 and even the Final Seniority List in the cadre of Kanungos Annexure P-12 dt. 21.07.2018, Annexure P- 13 dt. 17.07.2019 & Annexure P-14 dt. 28.09.2020 had not been challenged by anybody. 39. Thus, for a period of 20 years, there had been no challenge to the seniority of the petitioners fixed in the year 2000 in the cadre of Patwaris and for 5 years in the position of Kanungos from 2017. 40. Thus, their seniority in the posts of Patwaris and Kanungos, stood crystallized and had become settled. 41. Even thereafter, petitioner no.1 was promoted on 01.06.2022 as Naib Tehsildar and petitioners no.2 to 4 were also promoted to the said posts on 12.08.2022. 42. The judgment in Kuldeep Kumar and others (supra) was pronounced on 22.08.2022 after all the said events happened and this decision was proposed to be implemented vide Annexure P-19 dt. 08.09.2022 by the respondents, ignoring the fact that settled seniority of the petitioners would thereby get disturbed. 43. In Amarjeet Singh’s case (supra-1), the principle that the settled seniority cannot be disturbed after a long lapse of time, was laid down by the Supreme Court. 44. Similar view had been taken in High Court of M.P. vs. Mahesh Prakash &Ors. (Para-16) and Bimlesh Tanwar vs. State of Haryana &Ors. (Para 54). 45. In H.S. Vankani’s case (supra-2), referred to above, the Supreme Court reiterated this principle, observing that seniority is a civil right which has an important and vital role to play in one's service career; future promotion of a Government servant depends either on strict ( 2026:HHC:19752 ) 18 seniority or on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or merit- cum-seniority etc.; seniority once settled is decisive in the upward march in one's chosen work or calling and gives certainty and assurance and boosts the morale to do quality work. The Supreme Court held that seniority instills confidence, spreads harmony and commands respect among colleagues, which is a paramount factor for good and sound administration, and if settled seniority at the instance of one's junior in service is unsettled, it will generate bitterness, resentment, hostility among the Government servants and the enthusiasm to do quality work might be lost. 46. The Supreme Court referred to its previous decisions in Union of India &Anr. vs. S.K. Goel &Ors and in T.R. Kapoor vs. State of Haryana, and reiterated the said principle in the above terms. 47. Having regard to this well settled legal position and in the facts and circumstances of the case referred to above, since there was no challenge to the seniority of the petitioners in the cadre of Patwaris in the last 20 years and in the cadre of Kanungos since 2017 and their seniority had become settled seniority, and if the Annexure P-19 dt. 08.09.2022 is implemented, it would unsettle their settled seniority in the said cadres and may also result in their reversion from the post of Naib Tehsildars, which they are holding, the respondents cannot be permitted at this stage to alter their seniority in the cadre of Patwaris and consequently in cadres of Kanungo and Naib Tehsildar cadre. 48. Therefore, the respondents are restrained from implementing Annexure P-19 dt. 08.09.2022 in respect of the Patwaris in the District of Shimla cadre or to effect ( 2026:HHC:19752 ) 19 any change in the seniority list of the petitioners assigned to them from 24.01.2000 onwards, vide Annexure P-2, or to disturb their promotions in the posts of Kanungos and Naib Tehsildars.” 14. So far as the plea taken by the respondents-State in the reply that the seniority has been rectified while implementing the judgment passed by this Court in S.S. Kutlehria’s case, is concerned, the said judgment does not talk about altering the position in respect of those employees, who were appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) and had the requisite qualifications before their appointment. The Division Bench of this Court in the said judgment had come to the conclusion that experience should be counted after acquiring the qualification and that was the issue before the Division Bench, which is not the issue in the present case. Therefore, the contention raised by the respondents-State that the seniority position was altered while implementing the judgment passed by this Court is not of any assistance to them. 15. Learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that once the petitioner had earlier filed petition, which came to be disposed of on 31.03.2011 is concerned, it has no bearing in the present case for the ( 2026:HHC:19752 ) 20 reason that the petitioner, in the present case, has assailed the subsequent action of the respondents-State and prior to that the seniority position of the petitioner was not disturbed, which can easily be discerned from the tentative seniority list issued by the respondents-State as on 31.12.2014, wherein too, the petitioner was shown senior to respondent No.3. Further no document has been placed on record to show that the same relief was prayed in the earlier petition. 16. Learned counsel representing respondent No.3 has supported the decision, which is under challenge. He has further submitted that since respondent No.3 was senior in age, no illegality has been committed by the respondents- State while assigning seniority to him. Further, respondent No.3 has pointed out that during the pendency of the present petition, this Court had passed an order on 12.12.2019, when interim order dated 19.10.2016 was modified to the extent that any promotion made during the intervening period shall be subject to final outcome of the petition. After passing the said order, both the petitioner and respondent No.3 were promoted to the post of Executive Engineer and at present respondent No.3 stand retired from service on 31.07.2025. Since respondent No.3 was promoted to the post of Executive ( 2026:HHC:19752 ) 21 Engineer and stands retired, the benefits derived by him will not be altered, but at the same time, seniority position assigned to him after the same having been settled much earlier as was done by the respondents-State while issuing impugned communications and notification dated 08.10.2016 (Annexure A-14) are not sustainable in law. 17. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the impugned communications dated 09.12.2015 (Annexure A-12), (Annexure A-13) and Notification dated 08.10.2016 (Annexure A-14) are quashed and set aside with a direction to the respondents-State to consider the petitioner senior to respondent No.3 and also consider his date of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 31.12.2008 with all consequential benefits. It is made clear that in case respondents-State do not release the arrears to the petitioners within three months from today, the respondents-State shall pay interest @6% per annum from today till actual payment. 18. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 22nd May, 2026 Judge (naveen)