Prem Vati Mehta and Others vs Munish Garg and Another

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The petitioners pointed out that the respondents have been taking steps time and again to meddle with the seniority of Supervisors in Social, Justice and Empowerment Department as on 31.3.1991, despite the same having been adjudicated before this Court in the original proceedings and thereafter the Court having considered the matter even in contempt proceedings. On 22nd September, 2010, we passed the following order:

After going through the files, we find that there is a total unfortunate and sorry state of affairs prevailing in the Department owing to lack of coordination. When this case was taken up on 1.9.2010, the order passed by this Court dated 16.12.2009 in COPC No. 74 of 2009 was analyzed and explained. Apparently the first respondent, Director seemed to have understood what this Court meant and said in the order. However, in the affidavit filed on 6th September, 2010, the second respondent has reiterated the stand of the Government that the Government proposed to revise the seniority list banking upon only a truncated portion of the order in the Contempt Petition. The first respondent will file an affidavit as to whether he had discussed with the second respondent as to what had transpired in the Court on 1st September, 2010 before the second respondent filing the affidavit dated 6th September, 2010.

Even in the second affidavit filed by the second respondent on 13th September, 2010, it is not very clear as to whether the Government has actually understood what is the position with regard to the settled seniority list. Therefore, the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Himachal Pradesh will file an affidavit stating clearly as to what is the stand of the Government as to the seniority list of Supervisors in the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment as on 31.3.1991, settled as on 10.3.2008.

The Additional Chief Secretary, who is incharge of the Social Justice and Empowerment has filed an affidavit on 23rd October, 2010. Paragraphs-1 to 3 reads as follows:

That on 22.9.10 the Hon''ble Court in COPC No. 208/2010 has directed the respondent No. 2 to file an affidavit stating clearly as to what the stand of the Government is as to the seniority list of Supervisors in the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment as on 31.3.1991, settled as 10.3.2008.

That the replying respondent has gone through the entire record/ files relating to the issue of final seniority list of Supervisors as on 31.3.1991 and affidavits filed by Shri Prem Kumar, Former Pr. Secretary, (SJ&E) to the Govt. of H.P. and Shri Bhim Sen, Pr. Secretary to Hon''ble Chief Minister and Hon''ble Court Orders passed on dated 29.10.2007 in CWP No. 55/2005, 16.12.2009 in COPC No. 74/2009 titled Prem Vati and Ors. v. Bhim Sen and Ors. and orders dated 1.9.2010, 8.9.2010, 14.9.2010, 15.9.2010, 20.9.2010 and 22.9.2010 in COPC No. 208/10 titled Prem Vati and Ors. v. Maneesh Garg.

That after going through the judgment of the Hon''ble Court in CWP No. 55/2005 dated 29.10.2007 and COPC No. 74/2009 dated 16.12.2009, passed on seniority issue of Supervisors as on 31.3.1991, in the department of Social Justice and Empowerment, the final seniority list of supervisors issued on 10.3.2008, which had been issued in compliance to the Hon''ble Court order dated 29.10.2007 in CWP No. 55/2005 has been treated as final.

The respondents, who are present before this Court submit that the present attempt to re-draw the seniority list was based on legal advice on the implementation of the order passed by this Court dated 16.12.2009, in COPC No. 74 of 2009 wherein according to the respondents, the Court had permitted to redraw the seniority list afresh after hearing the representationists and all the interested parties in accordance with law. But what is the law has been stated in the earlier part of the same order. It appears that this aspect has missed the notice of all concerned. Once senority list has been settled finally by the department concerned and the same having attained finality through an adjudicatory process before this Court, the Government has no business to reopen the same, unless otherwise specifically directed by the Court. The Government cannot on its own redraw it or unsettle it on representations. It is clearly impermissible under the law. In view of the apologetic stand taken by the respondents, who are present before us and in view of the stand now taken by the Government before this Court, we do not find any contumacious conduct on the part of the respondents nor do we find any willful attempt on their part to violate the directions issued by this Court.

In that view of the matter, the notices are discharged and COPC is dismissed, recording the submissions in the affidavit, as above.

Copy Dasti.