CM No.4973 of 2011 1 LPA No.61 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION 17.10. 2011 Sukhbir Singh Virk ...Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana and others …Respondent CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA PRESENT: Mr.ADS Jatana, Advocate for the appellant Mr.RKS Brar, Addl.A.G., Haryana Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) C.M. No.4973 of 2011 This application has been filed for placing on record copy of the judgment dated 24.8.2011 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.28037-28044 of 2009 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and for deciding the main appeal. CM allowed. Order 24.8.2011 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.28037-28044 of 2009 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is taken on record. Earlier this appeal was adjourned sine die to await the decision of CM No.4973 of 2011 2 LPA No.61 of 2011 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.Ps, referred to above. Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order on 24.8.2011:- “Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER Leave granted. Ad interim order dated 7th December, 2009 is vacated. We clarify that the pendency of these appeals shall not come in the way of the respondents in taking recourse to appropriate proceedings in case the impugned judgement is not implemented by the State. The appeals will be heard on the SLP Paper Books. Additional documents, if any, may be filed by the parties. (VINOD LAKHINA) (KUSUM GULATI) Court Master Court Master.” From the above order, it appears that the earlier interim order dated 7.12.2009 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been vacated and the writ petitioners have been left free to initiate appropriate proceeding in case the judgement passed by the High Court is not implemented by the State. Based upon the aforesaid order the appellants in these L.P.As have prayed for hearing the appeals on merit. CM is allowed. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, main appeal is taken up on the board for final disposal. LPA No.61 of 2011 This appeal arises out of a common judgement of learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 3.2.2009, whereby bunch of writ petitions were dismissed. Vide the order of the learned Single Judge as many as 11 writ petitions were disposed of. Earlier appeals were preferred CM No.4973 of 2011 3 LPA No.61 of 2011 in 8 of the 11 writ petitions decided by the learned Single Judge. These appeals have been disposed of by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgement dated 1.9.2009. These 8 appeals including LPA No.96 of 2009 were allowed by the Hon'ble Division Bench by a common order dated 1.9.2009. Judgement of the learned Single Judge has been set aside. On examination of the entire issue, Hon'ble Division Bench while allowing the appeals held as under:- “we hold that no doubt it was a matter of administrative policy to create or abolish posts, the said judgments are not applicable to the present case. Even if HSISF was disbanded, the appointment and selection of the appellants was not for the said posts. We are not concerned with the validity of decision of the authority regarding the said posts but to the termination of the appellants who were never appointed to the said posts but to the police force. As regards judgments dealing with the question of there being no right to posts which were not advertised, the posts in question were duly advertised and appointment of the appellants was against the advertised posts. The judgments are, thus, distinguishable. 17. The question has, thus, to be answered in favour of the appellants and against the State. The impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly stated that in case of reinstatement, the appellants will not insist on financial benefits but only continuity of service. 18. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the State is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Appellant in this appeal was co-petitioner before the learned Single Judge, whose writ petition was also dismissed. He being similarly situated and the judgement of learned Single Judge having been set aside by CM No.4973 of 2011 4 LPA No.61 of 2011 this Court, this appeal is allowed in terms of the aforementioned judgement of the Hon'ble Division Bench. Appellant shall be entitled to the similar relief as granted in the L.P.A. No.96 of 2009 decided on 1.9.2009. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE 17.10.2011 MFK