Dismissed¶7

Union Territory Chandigarh Administration and Others v. Satish Kumar and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jul 2025CWP/15130/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Seniority of Constables; revision of seniority 2020; seniority settled 1988; re-opening seniority after 32 years; delay and laches; 3-4 year reasonableness period; Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, 2010 (12) SCC 471; K.R. Mudgal; Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench, OA No.204 of 2021, order dated 30.01.2025; Union Territory Chandigarh Administration; Satish Kumar; CWP-15130-2025 (O&M); decided 21 July 2025; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

In view of the well settled law in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, 2010 (12) SCC 471, long standing seniority ought not to be interfered with. ¶5

Union Territory Chandigarh Administration and Others Vs Satish Kumar and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

128

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP-15130-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21^st July, 2025

¶4

UNION TER R ITORY CHANDIGARH ADMI N ISTRATION AND OTHERS

¶5

..…...Petitioner(s)

¶6

V/s.

¶7

SATISH KU M AR AND OTHERS .....Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

¶9

Present M r.Aman Bahri, Addl. Standing Counsel, a nd Ms. Shubreet Kaur, Junior Panel Counsel, f or the petitioners-U.T., Chandi g arh.

¶10

¶11

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)

¶12

1. P ursuant to the order passed b y this Court on the previous occasion, th e concerned Clerk/Dealing A ssistant has submitted an unconditiona l apology. We accept the sam e and expect him to be more careful in fut u re.

¶13

2. T his Writ Petition is directed a g ainst order dated 30.01.2025 passed by t he Central Administrative T ribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in OA No.204 o f 2021 whereby the Tribunal h as interfered with the revision of seniority m ade for the Constables in 2020.

¶14

3. T he Tribunal has noticed the f acts of the case according to which the ori g inal seniority was settled way b ack in 1988. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that after 32 years, the employer would not be justified in r e -opening the issue of seniorit y so as to unsettle the service prospects of o thers, who in between have be e n promoted and many of them have retired.

¶15

SURESH KUMAR 2025.07.24 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CWP-15130-2025 (O&M)

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

4. L earned counsel for the petition e rs states that even the original seniority list d rawn in the year 1988 was not i n accordance with the Rules.

¶19

5. B e that as it may, we are not p ersuaded to interfere with the impugned ju d gment of the Tribunal in view of the well settled law in the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Others ; 201 0 (12) SCC 471 that long stand i ng seniority ought not to be interfered wi t h. The relevant extract of the j u dgment of the Supreme Court is reproduced as under:-

¶20

“ 29. Thus, in view of the above, th e settled legal proposition that emerge s is that once the seniority had b een fixed and it remains in existen c e for a reasonable period, any ch a llenge to the same should not be ente r tained. In K.R. Mudgal (supra), this Court has laid down, in crystal clear words that a seniority lis t which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed. Thus, 3-4 years is a r e asonable period for challengin g the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue of seniority b eyond this period, he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum, by furnish i ng satisfactory explanation.”

¶21

6. I n view of the aforesaid, the u s ual period for examination of such issue is 3 to 4 years but a period of 32 years would be too much of a delay to be c o ndoned. The Tribunal has corr e ctly interfered with the action of the petitio n ers in unsettling such a long sta n ding seniority.

¶22

7. T herefore, we find no force in t h e present Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶23

SURESH KUMAR 2025.07.24 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CWP-15130-2025 (O&M)

¶25

Page 3 of 3

¶26

8. A ll pending applications, if an y , in this case are disposed of

¶27

accordingly.