Judgment:
Surjit Singh, J.
1. Petitioner has sought judicial review of order dated 14.12.2004, passed by the HP State Administrative Tribunal (now scrapped) in Original Application No. 622 of 1993, filed by the petitioner, seeking quashing of orders of his deconfirmation and reversion.
2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus. Petitioner was recruited as clerk in Industries Department of Himachal Pradesh in the year 1958. Some time in the year 1962, he was promoted as Statistical Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 106-200. Later on, the pay scale was revised to Rs. 150-300, vide notification issued sometime in the year 1967, but the revision was retrospective, i.e. from the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? year 1962. Petitioner was granted this higher scale from September, 1965.
3. On and with effect from 1.11.1966, reorganization of the erstwhile State of Punjab took place and on such reorganization, some Statistical Assistants, working in the said State, were allocated to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh, alongwith some areas of the said erstwhile State of Punjab. Among those Statistical Assistants was respondent No. 2. He was in the pay-scale of Rs. 150-300. He had been directly appointed as Statistical Assistant in the aforesaid pay scale, on 12.5.1966. At the time of reorganization, there was no cadre of Statistical Assistant in the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh in the pay scale of Rs. 150-300, but thereafter the pay scale of Statistical Assistants, which was Rs. 106-200, was revised to Rs. 150-300 with retrospective effect and the present petitioner and some other Statistical Assistants, working in the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh, prior to the aforesaid reorganization of Punjab State, were placed above respondent No. 2 in the seniority list, which was circulated on 23.6.1975. Respondent No. 2 challenged that seniority list by filing TA No. 131 of 1986 before the State Administrative Tribunal. The State Administrative Tribunal allowed that application, vide order dated 21.12.1989 and quashed the said seniority list and directed the State of Himachal Pradesh to redraw the seniority list of Statistical Assistants as on 1.11.1966. Respondent No. 1 while implementing the said order, placed respondent No. 2 above the present petitioner, in the seniority list.
4. It appears from the record that some other persons also filed an application before the Tribunal challenging the placement of the petitioner in the seniority list above them. That Transfer Application was registered at No. 125 of 1986 and was decided in the year 1989. Thereafter another seniority list was prepared giving effect to both the judgments of the learned Tribunal, i.e. judgment in TA No. 131 of 1986 as also in TA No. 125 of 1986. In that seniority list, respondent No. 2 was shown at Sr. No. 2 while petitioner's name figured at Sr. No. 8. On account of re-drawal of the seniority list, on the basis of the judgments in the aforesaid two cases, the petitioner, who in the meanwhile had first been promoted to the post of District Employment Officer and then Regional Employment Officer, was reverted and respondent No. 2 was given promotions as Employment Officer and then Regional Employment Officer, with retrospective effect. The petitioner was also de-confirmed as Employment Officer and Regional Employment Officer.
5. Petitioner challenged the orders of his reversion and de-confirmation by filing OA No. 622 of 1993. He also challenged the revised seniority list. He alleged that post was available for promotion of respondent No. 2 and, therefore, he ought not to have been reverted while implementing the judgment of the Tribunal in TA No. 131 of 1986.
6. It may be stated that soon after the petitioner was reverted and de-confirmed, he applied for voluntary retirement. His prayer was granted and he stood retired voluntarily in the year 1993 itself.
7. Aforesaid Original Application filed by the petitioner was contested both by the State and respondent No. 2. It was alleged that the impugned orders had been passed against the petitioner while giving effect to the judgments of the Tribunal in TA Nos. 131 and 125 of 1986, to both of which the petitioner was a party
8. Learned Tribunal has dismissed petitioner's said Original Application holding that the matter is res judicata and that the impugned orders are the consequence of the implementation of judgments in TA Nos. 131 and 125 of 1986. It is this order of the Tribunal, judicial review of which has been sought by means of the present writ petition.
9. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Additional Advocate General and gone through the record.
10. It is not denied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders have been passed because of the implementation of the judgments of the Tribunal delivered in the aforesaid TA Nos. 131 and 125 of 1986. Her contention is that there were some posts available and, therefore, the petitioner ought not to have been reverted. Elaborating the submission, she has stated that before the petitioner was reverted, respondent No. 2 had already been promoted as Regional Employment Officer and, therefore, there was no need for reverting him. We do not find any merit in the submission for the reason that it was not only the present respondent No. 2, who was brought above the petitioner in the seniority list on account of decision in TA No. 131/1986, but six more persons had been brought above him, on account of the decision in TA No. 125 of 1986 having gone against the petitioner. So, it was not a case of accommodating only one person, i.e. respondent No. 2, but seven persons, who as a result of aforesaid decisions became senior to the petitioner.
11. Next submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the he had passed departmental examination, soon after his promotion as Employment Officer, whereas respondent No. 2 passed such examination as late as in the year 1981, though he was promoted as Employment Officer in the year 1976 and as Regional Employment Officer in the year 1985. The mere fact that respondent No. 2 took many years to pass the departmental examination is no ground for not implementing the judgment of the Tribunal in TA No. 131 of 1986; particularly when said judgment had not been challenged by filing any appeal or seeking its judicial review because of which it has attained finality.
12. In view of the above discussion, we see no merit in the present writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.