Dr.Sahib Singh Chandna vs State Of Haryana & Others on 3 August, 2009

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10915 of 2009                              :{ 1 }:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                 CHANDIGARH


                    DATE OF DECISION: August 03, 2009



Dr.Sahib Singh Chandna

                                                             .....Petitioner

                           VERSUS



State of Haryana & others

                                                              ....Respondents



CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?



PRESENT:             Mr.Pankaj Maini, Advocate,
                     for the petitioner.

                                  ****

RANJIT SINGH, J.

The basic claim made by the petitioner in the present writ

petition is to seek retrospective promotion of various posts like Senior

Scientific Assistant and Senior Scientific Officer followed by Assistant

Director. This claim is made on the ground that the past service of

the petitioner rendered in different departments of the State from

9.12.1976 to 6.3.1982 be counted for the purpose of his seniority.

Plea is that if this service is taken into consideration, the petitioner

would be senior most Assistant Director and, thus, would be eligible
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10915 of 2009 :{ 2 }:

for promotion to the post of Director. The support is taken in this

regard from the earlier order passed by this Court on 2.8.1999 in Civil

Writ Petition No.710 of 1998.

The petitioner claims that he was found suitable and

recommended for promotion to the post of Senior Scientific Officer on

26.12.1985. The promotion, however, was denied to the petitioner.

To make grievance about this now in the year 2009, obviously is

highly belated. The petitioner appears to have filed some writ

petition in the year 1999 where order, Annexure P-6, was passed.

His record was directed to be treated as good with consequential

relief. The petitioner thereafter made a representation for granting

benefits of his service rendered in the other departments but no

action was taken. This representation, however, was rejected. In the

year 2003, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court for

quashing an advertisement dated 5.12.2003 and to consider him for

promotion to the post of Assistant Director. The petitioner was

considered eligible and accordingly considered for promotion and this

part of the relief was rendered infructuous. The petitioner made a

claim for retrospective promotion to the post of Senior Scientific

Assistant and Senior Scientific Officer, which was not considered due

to lack of proper pleadings. While disposing of the writ petition, liberty

was given to the petitioner to file a fresh petition for claiming

retrospective promotion.

During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner

conceded that he filed a petition asking for retrospective promotion

but the same was dismissed by this Court. Though not clear but this

challenge was made by the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.9282 of
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10915 of 2009 :{ 3 }:

2004, which was dismissed on 9.11.2006 on the ground of limitation.

The claim of the petitioner for retrospective promotion was earlier not

gone into by this Court in its order dated 4.5.2004. Thereafter, the

petitioner had raised a challenge and had remained unsuccessful as

disclosed above. Now after five years, he has again repeated this

challenge without clearly disclosing the fact that he had remained

unsuccessful in his prayer for seeking retrospective promotion. This

appears to have been done in pursuant to the liberty given to the

petitioner vide Annexure P-10. His earlier prayer in this regard was

declined on the ground of delay. The petitioner can not be permitted

to revive the cause by filing representations. The petitioner, thus,

can not be permitted to re-agitate the issues, which had been earlier

considered and declined by this Court. It can be noticed that the

liberty was given to the petitioner to seek retrospective promotion, on

4.5.2004. The petitioner would not have any explanation to explain

this delay of 5 years to seek the same relief now through the present

writ petition specially when, earlier prayer was declined due to delay.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

August 03, 2009                                ( RANJIT SINGH )
khurmi                                              JUDGE