2026:HHC:28230 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.6102 of 2020 Decided on : 08 th July, 2026 ____________________________________________________________________ Ram Paul ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the letter dated 3-4-2018 (Annexure-A/7) issued by the respondent No 2 may kindly be quashed. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to rectify the mistake in respect of the notional date of appointment of the applicant as Patwari and to provide the same date as 1-6-1988 instead of 28-11- 1988 alongwith all consequential benefits. (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to place the applicant at Sr. No. 114 in the seniority list of Patwaries (Annexure-A/6) issued by the respondent 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 No. 2 vide memorandum dated 11-1-2018 showing the position as on 30-9-2017. (iv) That the respondents may kindly be directed to promote the applicant to the post of Kanungo w.e.f. 15-5-2014, the date, immediate junior to the applicant Shri Bhuvnesh Kumar has been promoted to the post of Kanungo along with all consequential benefits i.e. arrears of pay and seniority at the appropriate place in the seniority list of Kanungoes (Annexure-A/9) issued by the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 6-9-2014 showing the position as on 31- 8-2014. (v) That the respondents may further be directed to promote the applicant to the post of Naib Tehsildar on the basis of the reviewed/revised position of the seniority list of the Kanungoes.” 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Candidate Patwari on 05.10.1982 and thereafter made Casual Patwari on 01.11.1983. The petitioner had passed the Patwar examination on 17.09.1986 and became entitled to be appointed as Patwari on regular basis along with assignment of seniority at the appropriate place, but respondent No.2 ignored the Rules and appointed him as Patwari on regular basis on 12.03.1991. It has been averred that the petitioner was assigned the seniority ignoring the date of passing the Patwar examination and availability of vacancy/post of the 3 Patwari. After a long-drawn struggle by way of representations, he was granted seniority as regular Patwari with notional date as 28.11.1988, as per final seniority list of Patwaris, as per office order dated 03.01.2008 (Annexure A-1). In this office order, the petitioner was figuring at Sr. No.93 and his date of appointment has been shown as 28.11.1988. As per the office order dated 03.01.2008, he was given the benefit on notional basis w.e.f. 28.11.1988 and on actual basis w.e.f. 01.01.2008. 3. It has further been averred that some of the similarly situate Patwaris had raised the dispute regarding grant of consequential benefits, in view of their seniority position and date of appointment on the post of Patwari, which came to be decided on 14.10.2015 in T.A. No.98/2015, titled, Hari Singh and another vs. The State of H.P. and another, with a direction was given to consider to release actual monetary benefit to the applicants from the period they were appointed on the post. 4. After the decision passed in the aforesaid matters, 4 the petitioner had also approached the Tribunal by way of O.A. No.1015 of 2017, titled, Rajender Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, wherein, he was applicant No.4 and the same was disposed of on 27.03.2017, with a direction to the respondents to consider his claim and claim of other applicants, in terms of the earlier decision passed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner has been granted the actual monetary benefits w.e.f. 28.11.1988 to 31.12.2007. The petitioner in the meantime was promoted to the post of Kanungo vide order dated 27.02.2016 on the basis of his wrong date of appointment as Patwari i.e. 12.03.1991, as such, on the basis of the changed position, respondent No.2 vide order dated 06.03.2018 (Annexure A-5) ordered the petitioner to be promoted to the post of Kanungo w.e.f. 14.10.2014, by reviewing the DPC. However, before issuing the office order dated 06.03.2018, respondent No.2 had issued the final seniority list of Patwaris as on 30.09.2017 vide letter dated 11.01.2018 (Annexure A-6), in which the petitioner was shown at Sr. No.135 and his date of 5 appointment as Patwari as 28.11.1988 which was mentioned in the office order dated 03.01.2008 (Annexure A-1). 5. It has further been averred that since one Sh. Bhuvnesh Kumar was assigned the seniority position No.114 and shown to have been appointed on 01.06.1988, the petitioner submitted a representation, which came to be rejected vide office order dated 03.04.2018 (Annexure A-7), stating therein, that as per the tentative seniority list of the Patwaris issued on 30.09.2017, his appointment was shown as 28.11.1988 which is reflected in the final seniority list. 6. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order, whereby his representation came to be rejected has approached this Court inter alia on the grounds that Sh. Bhuvnesh Kumar, presently Kanungo, had joined the Department as Causal Patwari on 01.08.1985, whereas the petitioner had joined the Department as Casual Patwari on 01.11.1983. As such, he was senior to Sh. Bhuvnesh Kumar as Causal Patwari and thereafter both of them passed the Patwari examination on 17.09.1986 and hence the petitioner 6 cannot be treated as junior to Sh. Bhuvnesh Kumar in any manner. But surprisingly, in the seniority list of Patwaris, circulated vide memorandum dated 11.01.2018, the petitioner was shown at Sr. No.135, whereas the name of above-mentioned Sh. Bhuvnesh Kumar was shown at Sr. No.114 and hence the petitioner is entitled to be placed over and above Sh. Bhuvnesh Kumar in the seniority list of Patwaris, issued vide memorandum dated 11.01.2018. It has further been averred that Sh. Bhuvnesh Kumar has been promoted to the post of Kanungo w.e.f. 15.05.2014 on the basis of seniority given in the cadre of Patwari, whereas the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Kanungo on 14.10.2014. It has also been averred that though respondents No.2 had taken steps to rectify the mistake by providing the notional date of appointment to the petitioner, but the petitioner has wrongly been given the notional date of appointment as 28.11.1988, whereas Sh. Bhuvnesh Kumar has been given notional date of appointment as Patwari on 01.06.1988. The petitioner came to know about this fact when 7 respondent No.2 issued seniority list of Patwaris, showing the position as on 30.09.2017 and hence, the petitioner deserves to be promoted to the post of Kanungo w.e.f. 15.05.2014 and entitled to be placed at an appropriate place in the seniority list of Kanungos, showing the position as on 31.08.2014 issued vide letter dated 06.09.2014. 7. It has further been averred that every employee has the legitimate expectation to have equal treatment in service career and hence the approach of the respondents towards the petitioner is unreasonable, arbitrary and unwarranted and thus prayed for quashing order dated 03.04.2018. 8. The respondents filed reply to the petition and averred that the petitioner is presently serving as Kanungo in the Department. It has been averred that the petitioner was appointed as Patwari Candidate on 07.10.1982 and made Casual Patwari on 01.11.1983. The petitioner passed Patwar examination in the year 1986 and thereafter his services were regularized on 12.03.1991. The petitioner was given notional 8 date of appointment on 28.11.1988 as per office order dated 03.01.2008 and he was notionally fixed w.e.f. 28.11.1988 and arrears were given to him w.e.f. 01.01.2008. After the directions given by the Tribunal, he has been granted the arrears w.e.f. 28.11.1988 to 31.12.2007 vide order dated 24.06.2017. Thereafter, he has been placed at Sr. No.135 in the seniority list of Patwari prepared up to 30.09.2017. The petitioner has been made Kanungo w.e.f. 14.10.2014. It has further been averred that the petitioner has claimed relief against Sh. Bhuvnesh Kumar, Patwari (now Kanungo), who had been appointed as regular Patwari w.e.f. 01.06.1988 against the Scheduled Tribe post and hence the petitioner is not entitled to notional date of appointment w.e.f. 01.06.1988. 9. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and controverted the averments made in the reply. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently 9 argued that once the petitioner as well as Sh. Bhuvnesh Kumar had passed the examination on the same date, he could not have been assigned seniority above him. Before adverting to the said submission, few key facts need to be noted which are undisputed. 12. The petitioner was shown to have been appointed as Patwari w.e.f. 28.11.1988, as evident from perusal of office order dated 03.01.2008 (Annexure A-1). The petitioner did not challenge the said date of his appointment as Patwari. Not only this, even before issuing the final seniority list as circulated on 11.01.2018, the tentative seniority list of Patwaris was circulated on 08.10.2017 and objections were invited to the tentative seniority list, wherein the appointment of the petitioner as Patwari was shown as 28.11.1988. The petitioner did not file objections to the tentative seniority list. It is only after issuing final seniority list dated 11.01.2018 (Annexure A-6), he raked up the issue that his date of appointment has wrongly been shown as 28.11.1988. Not only this, the petitioner has raked up the claim against Sh. 10 Bhuvnesh Kumar, who has not been impleaded as one of the respondents in the petition. It is settled law that in absence of a party to be affected, no claim can be entertained, and, therefore, the petition on this sole ground is not maintainable. 13. The plea now taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that since the petitioner as well as Sh. Bhuvnesh Kumar had qualified the Patwar examination on the same date, therefore, he ought to have been given the seniority position above Sh. Bhuvnesh Kumar, cannot be countenanced in absence of Sh. Bhuvnesh Kumar. Not only this, once the petitioner did not dispute his date of appointment, as evident from perusal of office order dated 03.01.2008, wherein his seniority position was shown at Sr. No.93 and his date of appointment as 28.11.1988, the relief now claimed by him is barred by delay and laches. It is settled law that the settled seniority position cannot be unsettled, even if the wrong seniority has been drawn. The petitioner could have challenged his date of appointment within three 11 or four years from the date of issuing the office order dated 03.01.2008 which he did not do and thus, his claim to assign him seniority above Bhuvnesh Kumar is barred by delay and laches. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and others versus State of Orissa and others, (2010) 12 SCC 471, has held that the issue regarding the seniority list, which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed. In the present case, the petitioner knew the fact that he had been assigned the date of his appointment as 28.11.1988 and subsequently also, approached the Tribunal when the actual monetary benefits in terms of the office order dated 03.01.2008 were extended only w.e.f. 01.01.2008, he did not rake up the issue that he has wrongly been shown to be appointed on 28.11.1988. Therefore, once, he did not raise the said plea in the earlier round of litigation and for the first time, has raised the issue with respect to his date of appointment, that too, after issuance of the final seniority list on 11.01.2018, the said 12 claim cannot be entertained at this belated stage and the petition is barred by delay and laches and hence, dismissed. 15. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 08 th July, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge