IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 7874 of 2009 Date of Decision: 2.3.2010. Ram Niwas --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner applied for the post of Pharmacist in response to the advertisement published in “Dainik Tribune” on 2.6.1998 against three posts of ex-service man B.C (B) category. The petitioner was summoned for interview. He participated in the interview held on 12.11.1998. The result of the selection was declared on 24.4.1999 but the petitioner did not figure in the said selection. He filed CWP No. 9808 of 1999 which came to be disposed of in view of the statement of the State counsel that if the petitioner produces the renewal of his registration with the Haryana Pharmacy Council within 2 weeks, his result shall be declared. The petitioner claims to have produced receipt showing the renewal of his registration with the Haryana Pharmacy Council. Despite this petitioner was not considered for appointment. Another writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner being CWP No. 10034 of 2002. In this writ petition again a direction was issued for declaration of the result. The case of the petitioner was again rejected vide letter dated 11.12.2002. The petitioner challenged the rejection in CWP No. 4650 of 2003. The said writ petition CWP. No. 7874 of 2009 -2- was also decided and the order impugned therein was quashed. The Haryana Staff Selection Commission was directed to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment as Pharmacist in Health Department, Haryana. On account of non-compliance of this order petitioner filed COCP No. 1656 of 2004. During the pendency of this contempt petition petitioner was selected and appointed vide order dated 4.1.2006. In view of the appointment of the petitioner, the contempt pettion was disposed of. The grievance of the petitioner is that his seniority has not been fixed. Petitioner has referred to the case of one Mahesh Kumar Bhardwaj who filed CWP no. 1338 of 2000 which was allowed by this Court and he was appointed later than the petitioner on 25.1.2008. Mahesh Kumar Bhardwaj was given the appointment w.e.f. 1.6.1999 in the same selection but in the case of the petitioner, he has not been granted the benefit of selection from the date of selection. The petitioner has accordingly filed this petition seeking a direction for grant of seniority, notional fixation of pay and other consequential benefits w.e.f. 1.6.1999. During the course of hearing the Court has perused the record available with Mr. Kundu. From the record it appears that there is a communication dated 4.1.2006, wherefrom it appears that the petitioner's name figure in the main selection list. As a matter of fact this was basis for disposal of COCP No. 1656 of 2004 vide order dated 9.1.2006. Copy of the communication has been placed on record. From the aforesaid communication it is evident that the petitioner was selected, however, his merit position is not indicated. Mahesh Kumar Bhardwaj, who was also selected in the same selection has already been granted the benefit of appointment from the date of selection. CWP. No. 7874 of 2009 -3- In view of the above circumstances, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to grant the benefit of seniority to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.6.1999 on the basis of his merit in the selection. The petitioner shall, however, will not be entitled to any financial benefit which shall be only notional, though, the salary of the petitioner at the time of his appointment shall be fixed giving him the notional benefit of increments and pay revision, if any. Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits from the date of appointment. Let the entire process of grant of benefits be completed within a period of three months. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 2.3.2010. lucky