RAJIV SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner No.1 was appointed as Sub-Inspector (General Duty) on 11th May, 1975. The petitioner No.2 was appointed as Sub-Inspector (General Duty) with effect from 5th April, 1975 and the petitioner No.3 was appointed as Sub-Inspector (General Duty) with effect from 26.3.1975. The petitioners had approached this Court by way of CWP No.404 of 1995 seeking the following reliefs:- a) Order Annexures-P4 and P11 may very kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents No.1 to 3 may very kindly be directed to treat the petitioners senior than the respondents No.4 to 26 and release all consequential benefits; b) Directions may also very kindly be issued to the respondents No.1 to 3 to promote the petitioners from the date their juniors were promoted by quashing the promotions of respondents No.4 to 26 with further directions to the respondents No.1 to 3 to grant all benefits of seniority, pay and allowances, arrears accrued thereto, etc. with interest @ 18% per annum, in the interest of law and justice; c) Cost of the petition may also very kindly be allowed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents; d) Records of the case be also summoned for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court; and e) Such other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case may also very kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents in the interest of law and justice.
(2.) A Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition and the operative portion of the judgment read thus:- "As we have already pointed out the petitioners are seniors to the Respondents No.4 to 26 as per the seniority list dated 30.11.1978, it should be the relevant seniority list for considering the promotions of the petitioners as against Respondents No.4 to 26. The Respondents are, therefore, directed to revise the present seniority list pertaining to the higher posts, namely the post of Inspector, Company Commander and Deputy Commander. To make the matter clear, Annexure P-4 is declared null and void in the eye of law. The petitioners will be entitled to all consequential benefits. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs." In sequel to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, the order dated 9th June, 1999 was issued. The text of order dated 9th June, 1999 read thus:- "The President is pleased to appoint the following officers to the grade of Coy. Commander and Dy. Commandants in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000/- and Rs. 3000-4500/- (Pre-revised) respectively with effect from the date of promotion of their immediate junior Shri Dhanna Singh as Coy. Commander with effect from 18.6.87 and as Dy. Commandant w.e.f. 27.5.96 on notional basis and on actual basis as per details indicated against each:- Sl.No. Name Date of notional promotion as Comdr/Dy. Comdt. Date of actual Coy promotion as Coy. Comdr./Dy. Comdt. S/Shri 1. Hem Raj 18.6.87 : 27.5.96 31.10.91 24.12.98(FN) 2. R.L. Sirtaj 18.6.87 : 27.5.96 11.11.91 24.12.98(FN) (AN) 3. Lal Singh Thakur 18.6.87 27.5.96 07.4.92 13.11.98(AN) 2. Their notional Seniority in the rank of Dy. Comdt. will be determined w.e.f. 27.5.96 and they will be placed above Shri Dhanna Singh in the order as indicated above. 3. The President is further pleased to order that their pay in the rank of Coy. Commander and Dy. Comdt. should be fixed under FR-27 at the stage it would have reached, had they been promoted as Coy. Commander w.e.f. 18.6.87 and as Dy. Commandant w.e.f. 27.5.96 i.e. the date of promotion as such of their immediate junior Shri Dhanna Singh without payment of arrears."
(3.) THE petitioners were also assigned the due seniority pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 21st August, 1997. The respondent No.3 feeling aggrieved by the issuance of the re-drawn seniority list whereby the petitioners were assigned the correct seniority as per the judgment of this Court, approached the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court by way of writ petition (Civil) No.232 of 2001. The Gauhati High Court disposed of the writ petition on 8.1.2002. The operative portion of this judgment reads thus:- "In that view of the matter, no effective decision could be arrived at fixing the seniority position of the petitioner vis- à-vis the aforesaid 3 incumbents. But it appears that the petitioner's already fixed seniority position in the below rank (in the post of Coy. Commander) had been disturbed detriment to the interest of the petitioner unheard and as such I am constrained to direct that the name of Hemraj Sharma, Ramlal Sirtaj, Lal Singh Thakur as available at Sl. No. 8, 9 and 10 and the name of the petitioner S. Yaiskul Singh as available in Sl. No.43 of the seniority list published in 1988 for the post of Coy. Commander be off listed from the said seniority list and the seniority position of the petitioner and the aforesaid 3 incumbents namely, Hemraj Sharma, Ram Lal Sirtaj and Lal Singh Thakur be refixed after allowing all of them reasonable opportunity of being heard and that must be done within a period of forty five days from today." ;