Judgment : Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, J. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider her case for regularization as a Part Time Water Carrier after granting her seniority from June/July 2002, with all consequential benefits. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that the petitioner had applied for the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Bhompher under Clause 12 of the Recruitment Scheme for appointment of Part Time Water Carrier. However, instead of considering her claim for appointment under Clause 12 of the Scheme, though being widow and belongs to IRDP family, one Sh. Rajpal was given appointment on the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Bhompher. Two members of Sh. Rajpal’s his family were already working on daily wage basis with the Forest Department, i.e. his mother and father. Despite apprising the authorities about the illegality committed in granting appointment to Sh. Rajpal, nothing was done. 3. The petitioner was compelled to file an Original Application before the erstwhile Tribunal bearing O.A. No. 1618 of 2002. The said original application was transferred to this Court and was numbered as CWP(T) No. 8621 of 2008 and vide judgment dated 13.12.2010, the same was allowed and appointment of respondent No. 4, Shri Rajpal made vide Annexure R-4/C dated 08.05.2002 was quashed and set aside and the respondents were directed to redo the entire selection process by considering the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 strictly as per Clause 12 of the Scheme afresh:- “The Government will have the power to appoint any candidate as part time water carrier on compassionate ground without following the selection process if the candidates are widows, women deserted by their husbands, or otherwise destitute handicapped persons and if the candidates falls below the poverty line as defined by the Rural Development Department from time to time.” 4. The private respondent namely Shri Rajpal, feeling aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, had preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed on 20.09.2011 (Annexure P-3). The private respondent in the earlier petition had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, the SLP preferred by him was dismissed on 07.12.2011 (Annexure P-4). 5. The private respondent namely Shri Rajpal, feeling aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, had preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed on 20.09.2011 (Annexure P-3). The private respondent in the earlier petition had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, the SLP preferred by him was dismissed on 07.12.2011 (Annexure P-4). 5. After dismissal of the SLP on 07.12.2011, respondent No.3 granted the approval on 12.06.2012, which was conveyed by respondent No.3 vide a communication dated 25.06.2012 to the President of School Management Committee, Government Primary School, Dungyani (Bhompher), Tehsil, Dohra and, thereafter, the  petitioner was offered appointment as Part Time Water Carrier and she joined her duties on 04.07.2012. After joining the service as Part Time Water Carrier, the petitioner made a detailed representation dated 07.02.2013 (Annexure P-6), to consider her case for grant of seniority as Part Time Water Carrier for the purpose of considering her candidature for regularization to Class-IV post in the Education Department as per the policy of the Government. 6. It has been averred in the petition that the respondents did not consider the representation made by the petitioner for grant of seniority from the year 2002 for the purpose of regularization, especially when she had immediately approached the competent Court of law during July 2002. 7. The notices in the writ petition were issued to the respondents on 13.12.2013, which were accepted by the learned Additional Advocate General, who sought four weeks’ time to file reply to the petition. The matter was thereafter listed on 03.03.2014. On 03.03.2014, the petition was admitted and the respondents were granted four weeks’ time to file reply to the petition. Thereafter the matter was listed before this Court on 03.09.2020, when a detailed order was passed taking note of the fact that though the petition was initially filed in this Court in the year 2013, but till date, no reply has been filed by the respondents. On the request of the learned Additional Advocate General, as a matter of indulgence, four weeks’ more time was granted to file response to the petition and the matter was ordered to be listed on 08.10.2020. 8. The respondents despite availing the opportunities did not choose to file reply to the petition and this Court vide order dated 08.10.2020 had struck off the right to file reply. 8. The respondents despite availing the opportunities did not choose to file reply to the petition and this Court vide order dated 08.10.2020 had struck off the right to file reply. Thereafter the matter was listed before this Court on 01.06.2023 and 02.03.2026. The respondents neither filed reply to the petition nor chose to file an application for recalling the order dated 08.10.2020, whereby right to file the reply was struck off. Therefore, the Court has no option except to hear the arguments on the basis of the pleadings already existing on the file. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and also perused the case file carefully. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had immediately approached the authorities and apprised them about the illegality having been committed by the respondents, when they had offered appointment to one Rajpal as Part Time Water Carrier and ignored the claim of the petitioner. When no action was taken by the respondents, she had approached the erstwhile Tribunal in the year 2002 to quash the appointment of Shri Rajpal made on 08.05.2002. 11. As per the pleadings in the petition, the original application preferred by the petitioner was registered as O.A. No. 1618 of 2002. The same could not be decided before the Tribunal. However, when the same was transferred to this Court and numbered as CWP(T) No. 8621 of 2008, this Court had allowed the same on 13.12.2010 and quashed the appointment of the Shri Rajpal and further directed the respondents to redo the entire selection process by considering the petitioner as well as Shri Rajpal strictly as per Clause 12 of the Scheme. 12. The appeal preferred by Shri Rajpal in the earlier proceedings was dismissed on 20.09.2011 and still feeling aggrieved by the order, had preferred the Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 07.12.2011. Only after dismissal of the SLP, the respondents granted approval to offer appointment to the petitioner as conveyed by respondent No. 3 vide communication dated 25.06.2012 (Annexure P-5) in sequel to which, the petitioner joined her duties on 04.07.2012. 13. The petitioner had approached the competent Court of law when her grievance was not redressed by the respondents immediately in the year 2002. 13. The petitioner had approached the competent Court of law when her grievance was not redressed by the respondents immediately in the year 2002. If the matter remained pending for years in the Court, the petitioner cannot be denied the seniority from the date when Shri Rajpal was offered appointment on 08.05.2002. 14. Learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that though no reply has been filed by them to the writ petition, but since there is no direction issued by this Court when the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed on 13.12.2010 regarding grant of seniority from the date when Shri Rajpal was offered the appointment, the relief claimed now cannot be granted to her. The said submission cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that when the writ petition was preferred by the petitioner, she was not even selected for the post qua which the respondents had illegally offered appointment to Shri Rajpal, which order was quashed by this Court. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 170 of 2014, titled, Shri Balak Ram vs. State of H.P. and others, wherein the claim raised by one Balak Ram was rejected by the Writ Court, but the Division Bench, after considering the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, had directed that the judgment under challenge needs to be modified by providing that the writ petitioner is entitled to notional seniority (and not monetary benefits) right from the date when Smt. Kala Devi was appointed, i.e. 20.08.1997. The relevant paras of the same are reproduced as under:- “7. It is admitted that the appellant-writ petitioner was denied his rights and Smt. Kala Devi was appointed illegally. Had the respondents not appointed Smt. Kala Devi illegally at the particular point of time, i.e. on 20th August, 1997, the appellant-writ petitioner would have been appointed and would have been in the employment right from that date, but he was deprived of his legitimate rights by making illegal appointment order. 8. Had the respondents not appointed Smt. Kala Devi illegally at the particular point of time, i.e. on 20th August, 1997, the appellant-writ petitioner would have been appointed and would have been in the employment right from that date, but he was deprived of his legitimate rights by making illegal appointment order. 8. The Apex Court in a case titled as Sanjay Dhar versus J & K Public Service Commission and another, reported in (2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 182, has dealt with the issue and held that when a candidate is deprived of appointment illegally, he is deemed to have been appointed right from the same date. It is apt to reproduce paras 14 to 16 of the judgment herein: “14. ….........As the appellant participated in the process of selection protected by the interim orders of the High Court and was also successful having secured third position in the select list, he could not have been denied appointment. The appellant is, therefore, fully entitled to the relief of his appointment being calculated w.e.f. the same date from which the candidates finding their place in the order of appointments issued pursuant to the select list prepared by the J&K PSC for 1992-93 were appointed and deserves to be assigned notionally a place in seniority consistently with the order of merit assigned by the J&K PSC. 15. We have already noticed the learned Single Judge having directed the appellant to be appointed on the post of Munsif in the event of his name finding place in the select list subject to the outcome of the writ petition which order was modified by the Division Bench in LPA staying the order of the learned Single Judge but at the same time directing one vacancy to be kept reserved. The High Court and the Government of J&K (Law Department) were not justified in bypassing the judicial order of the High Court and making appointments exhausting all available vacancies. The right of the appellant, if otherwise sustainable, cannot be allowed to be lost merely because of an appointment having been made wittingly or unwittingly in defiance of the judicial order of the High Court. 16. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside. The right of the appellant, if otherwise sustainable, cannot be allowed to be lost merely because of an appointment having been made wittingly or unwittingly in defiance of the judicial order of the High Court. 16. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside. It is directed that the appellant shall be deemed to have been appointed along with other appointees under the appointment order dated 6-3-1995 and assigned a place of seniority consistently with his placement in the order of the merit in the select list prepared by J&K PSC and later forwarded to the Law Department. During the course of hearing the learned senior counsel for the appellant made a statement at the Bar that the appellant was interested only in having his seniority reckoned notionally in terms of this order and was not claiming any monetary benefit by way of emoluments for the period for which he would have served in case he would have been appointed by order dated 6-3-1995. We record that statement and direct that the appellant shall be entitled only to the benefit of notional seniority (and not monetary benefits) being given to him by implementing this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The contesting respondents shall pay the appellant costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/-.” 9. A learned Single Judge of this Court in a case titled as Hem Chand versus State of H.P. & others, reported in 2014 (3) Him L.R. 1962, has taken the same view. It is apt to reproduce paras 3 and 4 of the judgment herein: “3. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner was delayed for no fault of his and came to be appointed only in the year 2009, that too after the intervention of this Court. The result of delayed appointment of the petitioner is that he has been paid less salary and denied the seniority over a long period of time. It has been consistently opined that in case a candidate is wrongly denied appointment for no fault on his part, he cannot be denied appointment from due date and consequential seniority. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to 1996 (8) SCC 637 , Pilla sitaram Patrudu & others vs. Union of India and others, 2000 (8) SCC 182 Sanjay Dhar vs. J&K Public Service Commission & another, 1991 (6) Vol. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to 1996 (8) SCC 637 , Pilla sitaram Patrudu & others vs. Union of India and others, 2000 (8) SCC 182 Sanjay Dhar vs. J&K Public Service Commission & another, 1991 (6) Vol. 76, Services Law Reporter 753, Hawa Singh Sangwan vs. Union of India & others and 1996 (6) vol. 116, Services Law Reporter, 335, Hawa Singh and others vs. The Haryana State Electricity Board. Moreover, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not recommended to be appointed on 26.6.2004 but the only ground taken is that it was the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Sawindhar, Tehsil Karsog, who delayed the appointment of the petitioner. This is the precise reason that the petitioner is entitled for the seniority from the date of offer of appointment, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in similar circumstances, in case titled as Chatter Singh vs. State of H.P. & others, CWP No. 188 of 2012-I:- “3. No doubt, the petitioner joined duty only on 13.5.2003. But in his favour admittedly there is an order by the Appointing Authority on 8.8.2002 to give appointment, as has been noted by the Tribunal in Annexure P-1, order. It is that order, which has been upheld by the Tribunal and the direction issued by the Tribunal is for implementing the said order. Therefore, for all purposes, the petitioner shall be deemed to be appointed on 8.8.2002, on the date admittedly the petitioner was directed to be appointed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has joined duly on 13.5.2003 after the order was issued to him, the entitlement of the petitioner for actual monetary benefit shall be only from 13.5.2003. In order to avoid any ambiguity, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be deemed to be appointed in the post of Gramin Vidya Upasak on 8.8.2002 for all purposes; but from 8.8.2002 to 13.5.2003, the benefits shall only be notional and from 13.5.2003, the petitioner shall be entitled to all monetary benefits.” 4. In order to avoid any ambiguity, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be deemed to be appointed in the post of Gramin Vidya Upasak on 8.8.2002 for all purposes; but from 8.8.2002 to 13.5.2003, the benefits shall only be notional and from 13.5.2003, the petitioner shall be entitled to all monetary benefits.” 4. In view of the exposition of the law referred to above, the petitioner is entitled to be treated as having been appointed as a Part Time Water Carrier at Government Primary School Alyas, Gram Panchayat, Sawindhar, Karsog-II, District Mandi from 30.6.2004, pursuant to the recommendation of the Government of H.P., as per order dated 26.6.2004 for the purpose of seniority. However, the entitlement of the petitioner for actual monetary benefits shall be only from 9.6.2009. In order to avoid any ambiguity, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be deemed to be appointed as Part Time Water Carrier from 30.6.2004 for all purposes, but from 30.6.2004 to 9.6.2009, the benefits shall only be notional and w.e.f. 9.6.2009, the petitioner shall be entitled to all monetary benefits.” 16. Since there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and the respondents had illegally denied appointment to the petitioner, the petitioner is at least entitled to seniority on notional basis w.e.f. 08.05.2002, when another person namely Shri Rajpal was appointed as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Bhompher, under Clause 12 of the Scheme. 17. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to assign seniority to the petitioner w.e.f. 08.05.2002 with all consequential benefits. However, it is clarified that the monetary benefits shall be paid to the petitioner from the date of filing of the petition. Needless to say that the case of the petitioner for regularization shall be considered taking the date of her appointment as 08.05.2002. 18. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any also stand disposed of.