Brij Bhushan Sharma vs H.P. State Forest Corporation and Jai Parkash

Sanjay Karol, J.—Petitioner has prayed inter alia for the following reliefs:-

(i) The respondents may kindly be directed to reflect the name of the petitioner at proper place in final seniority list of Timber Watchers circulated on 19.7.2008 vide annexure P-3.

(ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to reflect respondent No. 3 as junior to the petitioner in the final seniority list of timber watcher circulated on 19.7.2008 at P-3.

(iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to promote the petitioner as Forest Guard prior in time to the promotion given to respondent no. 3 keeping in the view facts that he is senior to the respondent No. 3 who has been promoted as Forest Guard in 2008.

Private-respondent, Jai Parkash has chosen not to contest the present petition inspite of service.

Facts are not much in dispute. Private-respondent, Jai Parkash was appointed as a Chowkidar on daily wage basis w.e.f. 1.12.1983. His appointment was in the Depot at Mantaruwala, Tehsil Paonta, District Sirmour, H.P. It is not in dispute that as on this date, private-respondent was in-eligible for appointment as a Timber Watcher. He continued to discharge his duties as a Chowkidar till he was appointed as a Timber Watcher on daily wage basis, i.e. 1.12.1989. In the meanwhile, petitioner Brij Bhushan, who was otherwise eligible, was directly appointed as a Timber Watcher on daily wage basis. Thus, petitioner''s appointment as a Timber Watcher is prior to that of private-respondent Jai Parkash. Significantly, Brij Bhushan was also appointed at the Depot in Mantaruwala, Tehsil Paonta, District Sirmour, H.P.

Services of both the petitioner and private-respondent were regularised as a Timber Watcher w.e.f. 1.9.1998. Respondents also circulated seniority lists in the year 1992 & 1998 which reflected the correct position pertaining to the placement of the petitioner and private-respondent as per their seniority. Petitioner was placed higher than the private respondent.

It was only in the year 2008 that the position changed when respondents circulated seniority list dated 19.7.2008 pertaining to the Timber Watchers wherein petitioner is placed lower than the private-respondent. Petitioner is placed at Sr. No. 1186 whereas private-respondent is placed at Sr. No. 64. Significantly this was done without any justifiable cause or request of the private respondent. Also petitioner was not intimated about any action in contemplation.

Now this action of the respondents is totally illegal. Simply because private-respondent had joined the services of respondent No. 2 prior in point of time, that fact by itself would not confer any right upon him to be placed higher in seniority. Seniority has to be determined on the basis of appointment/joining in accordance with the rules, instructions, guidelines/law. In the year 1983, private respondent was ineligible for being considered for appointment to the post of Timber Watcher. On his own merit and after selection, petitioner was appointed as a Timber Watcher on 1.5.1988, which date is prior to the date on which private-respondent was appointed on the same post. Not only that respondents themselves maintained the position of seniority till the circulation of the impugned seniority list dated 19.7.2008.

It is not as though petitioner slept over the matter before filing of the instant petition. Repeated requests and detailed representations for rectification of the seniority list and correction of anomaly was made by the petitioner which is evident from (Annexure P-4). It was only when they failed to take any action in terms thereof, petitioner was constrained to approach this Court.

Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The seniority list qua the petitioner and private-respondent is quashed. Respondents are directed to rectify the mistake and issue a fresh seniority list by placing the petitioner above the private-respondent. All consequential action, including promotion and disbursement of monetary dues, if any, in terms thereof shall also be taken by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment.

In view of the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.