IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.12810 of 2009
Date of Decision: August 21, 2009
Mohinder Pal
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & Another
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate, for
the petitioner.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
This civil writ petition has been
filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution
of India praying for issuance of a writ in the
nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to
decide representation dated 3.7.2008 (Annexure
P-7) within a time bound period.
On going through the petition, I
find that without laying proper foundation in
regard to prima facie right of the petitioner,
the prayer has been made.
The facts, as pleaded, are that the
petitioner was recruited as Field Officer in
CWP No.12810 of 2009 [2]
Punjab Films and News Corporation in the year
1979. The said Corporation was wound up in 1992.
The petitioner was offered either `golden
handshake or absorption in some other Government
department’. The petitioner preferred to be
absorbed in Government department. The petitioner
claims that he having passed M.A. in History and
possessing a Post Graduate Diploma in Public
Relations, was entitled to a post commensurate to
his qualification.
Be that as it may, the petitioner
was given offer of absorption in Transport
Department on the post of Clerk w.e.f. 9.4.1992.
It seems that the petitioner accepted the said
offer and is working continuously since then in
Transport Department.
It has been pleaded that this Court
while dealing with Civil Writ Petition No.17266
of 1995 had directed the respondent-State to
absorb the persons working in the Scheme that was
under consideration of the Court in that case, on
suitable posts commensurate with their
qualifications which they possessed at the time
of their retrenchment.
I find that the first
representation made by the petitioner is Annexure
P-5 dated 13.7.2004. It thus transpires that the
CWP No.12810 of 2009 [3]
petitioner was satisfied with his absorption on
the post of Clerk for 12 years whereafter the
representation was filed.
Learned counsel has not been able
to show that the petitioner accepted absorption
on the post of Clerk under protest or had
protested within a reasonable period of time. The
petition suffers from delay and latches. Such
being the position, I do not find that the
petitioner, prima facie, has any right to invoke
the writ jurisdiction.
The petition is dismissed.
(AJAI LAMBA)
August 21, 2009 JUDGE
avin
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?