CWP No.7158 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.7158 of 2007 (O&M) Decided on : 03.03.2009 Rajesh Kumar ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present:- Mr. K. L. Dhingra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Sanjay Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.3. AJAY TEWARI J. The petitioner who is working as a Sweeper with Municipal Committee, Safidon was relieved from service in 1997 alongwith five other Sweepers. Therefore, the petitioner alongwith five others filed CWP No.5944 of 1997 which was disposed of with the directions to the respondents to pass speaking order. Since speaking order was not passed, C.O.C.P. No.815 of 1998 was filed by all the said employees. During this interregnum, the respondents passed following order dated 23.07.1997:- “Keeping the representations in view, it is ordered that the above mentioned sweeper employees shall be appointed in the Municipal Committee, Safidon but these appointments shall be made when there is a vacancy or some sweeper employee retires and a new post is sanctioned or some sweeper employee is transferred. The aforementioned CWP No.7158 of 2007 (O&M) -2- employees shall be appointed according to their seniority as and when there is a vacancy. The question of back wages does not arise” In fact, the above said order was taken as defense to the above mentioned C.O.C.P. No.815 of 1998 and annexed alongwith the reply thereto. The respondents also attached seniority list at serial No.3. The present writ petition has been filed on the ground that all the other persons have been reinstated except the petitioner. It is further averred that one vacancy has now arisen due to the death of one Babu Ram. The petitioner represented that he should also be reinstated like his other erstwhile colleagues but no action was taken thereon. In reply, these facts have not been denied. The only plea which has been taken is that there is already over-staffing in the cadre of sweepers. However, it has not been denied that this was the position even when the other erstwhile colleagues of the petitioner were reinstated. In my opinion, this action of the respondents is indefensible. It may have provided a defense if none of the other persons had been reinstated on the plea of there being over-staffing. As noticed above, this fact did not deter the respondents from reinstating other erstwhile colleagues of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the action of the respondents as not reinstating the petitioner on account of the death of Babu Ram above said can not be sustained. This writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in terms of the order dated 23.07.1997 extracted above. March 03, 2009 ( AJAY TEWARI ) ashish JUDGE