IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.1165 of 2009
Date of decision: January 27, 2009
Manjeet Bhatt & others ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & others ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present : Mr. V.S. Punia, Advocate
for the petitioners.
***
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral)
The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders dated
09.02.2004/11.03.2004 whereby they were reinstated in service
as per their initial appointment letters but the same was treated
as fresh appointment and they were not given benefits of
continuity of service. The sole reliance of learned counsel for the
petitioners is on order dated 20.05.2008 whereby this Court
directed the respondents to decide the representation of allegedly
similarly situated employees for the said benefits.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently
urged that in this case also a representation is pending and
similar order be passed.
In my opinion, this writ petition does not deserve to
succeed. Admittedly, the order by which the petitioner are
aggrieved was passed about five years ago. Even the
representations of the petitioners have been made on 21.07.2008
CWP No.1165 of 2009 -2-
after taking the benefit of the order dated 20.05.2008. The
contention that the petitioners are making only innocuous prayer
for decision of representation also in my opinion does not cut any
ice because the fact remain that the petitioners have allowed
5 years period to elapse before raising any grouse. It cannot be
denied that in case now the petitioners are granted this benefit
(either by the department or by this Court) it would impact the
seniority of other employees who are not before this Court.
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
January 27, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE