IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 7562 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 5, 2009 MADAN MOHAN ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. GS Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) On 11.8.2009, the following order was passed:- “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 certiorari, quashing Order dated 30.8.2001 (Annexure P-7) under which respondent No.2 i.e. Director, State Transport Punjab, Chandigarh, has refused to insert the name of the petitioner in the seniority list of Civil Writ Petition No. 7562 of 2009 2 clerks, in the office of Divisional Manager. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been pleaded that since the name of the petitioner was not included in the seniority list of clerks in the office of Divisional Manager, the petitioner was constrained to institute a civil suit. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 9.6.1999 (Annexure P-4). It seems that the respondents went up in appeal which was partly allowed. Perusal of judgment and decree (Annexure P-4) passed by the Civil Court indicates that Issue No.1 was framed in the following words:- “1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to be named in seniority list of employees of the office of Divisional Manager at appropriate place? OPP” Issue No.1 has been answered in the following terms:- “…….. Under these circumstances, when it is proved on file that plaintiff was appointed on temporary basis only and lateron his services were regularized in the office of Divisional Manager only, the plaintiff had been drawing his salary from the office of Divisional Manager, the plaintiff had also been allotted a G.P. Fund Account Number, the G.P. Fund have already been deducted from the salary of plaintiff and that the plaintiff earlier joined in the office of General Manager on adhoc basis only I am of the considered view that plaintiff Civil Writ Petition No. 7562 of 2009 3 is entitled to be named in the seniority list of employee of the office of Divisional Manager at the place where it becomes due. Consequently, plaintiff is entitled to seek the selection grade of Rs.510-800 whereof 26.10.1982 and is also entitled to arrears with the permissible interest. Hence, both these issues are decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants. So far as judgment of the first Appellate Court is concerned, the following would be relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in this petition:- “…… Looking from that angle also as respondent proved to be an employee of office of D.M. practically for all purposes as discussed above and as such respondent liable to be treated as an employee of the office of D.M. Therefore, appellants must consider claim of respondent for inclusion of his name in the seniority list of clerks of offices of D.Ms and even selection grade/senior scale must be granted to him by taking into consideration the fact that services of respondent stood regularized with effect from 26.10.1982. Direction for consideration of these claims of respondent necessarily should be given so that service record of respondent may be scrutinized by appropriate authority while fixing date regarding grant of selection/senior scale…….” Learned counsel states that although execution application of the petitioner was dismissed, however, the respondents cannot go against the verdict of Civil Civil Writ Petition No. 7562 of 2009 4 Court. While passing the impugned order, the respondents have taken a decision that the name of the petitioner is mentioned in the seniority list of Punjab Roadways clerks and his name cannot be entered in the seniority list of clerks of Divisional Manager’s Office. Respondent No.2 is required to file an affidavit as to under what circumstances, judgment and decree passed by a Court of Law, which has attained finality, has not been followed. Adjourned to 13.10.2009.” Additional affidavit of Shri Mandeep Singh, IAS, Director, State Transport, Punjab, sworn on 28.10.2009, indicates that the required relief has been granted to the petitioner. The petitioner has been adjusted in the cadre of Head Office and has been posted in the Establishment Branch. Substance of the relief, accordingly, has been given to the petitioner. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the relief has not been given in accordance with the rights of the petitioner, as declared by the civil court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that a person junior to the petitioner has been given the relief of interest, etc., however, the same has been denied to the petitioner, although there is a judgment in favour of the petitioner. Operative portion of the order passed by the civil court has been reproduced in para-7 of the additional affidavit, which has been separately taken on record vide an order of even date. The Additional Civil Writ Petition No. 7562 of 2009 5 District Judge, Ferozepur, has directed that the benefits due to the petitioner be given with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, on the arrears of salary, etc., from the date from which the benefits had been withheld. Interest will be recoverable till realization of the due amount. I find that only a part of the judgment has been complied with. I am constrained to observe that the respondent-State is behaving like an ordinary litigant. The rights of the petitioner have been declared by the civil court vide judgment dated 16.3.2000 and yet the petitioner had to approach the writ court for getting his claim. This petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents to grant complete relief, as granted by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, in accordance with the operative portion of the judgment, as reproduced in para-7 of the additional affidavit. The needful be done within 4 months of receipt of certified copy of the order. November 5, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?