L.P.A. No. 199 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 199 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: November 5, 2009 Narinder Kumar ...Appellant Versus Atam Parkash and others ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No. 3 to 6. ORDER 1. This order will dispose of LPA No. 199 of 2009 filed by Narinder Kumar and LPA No. 285 of 2009 filed by the State of Haryana, as both the appeals have been filed against the same judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3.12.2008, allowing the writ petition filed by the contesting respondents and directing the State to shift them to the technical wing of the Telecommunication Department of Haryana Police from the date persons junior to them were so converted with consequential relief. Further direction was issued to prepare a seniority list after giving effect to the directions so issued. 2. The appellant and the original writ petitioners are employed as wireless operators having different designations in the Telecommunication L.P.A. No. 199 of 2009 2 Department of Haryana Police. In the said department there are two wings, one operational and other technical and seniority is maintained separately. The writ petitioners were in the operational wing. Their case was that initially the appellant as well as the contesting respondents were in operational wing and while the appellant and some other employees were allowed to convert technical side in the year 1979, claim of the writ petitioners for the same relief was not allowed. Though their claim was recommended on 15.3.1994, the competent authority did not impliedly accept the same as order dated 8.6.1994 was passed in favour of the appellant and other employees of that category, which was made subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. 3. Grievance of appellant-Narinder Kumar is that he was never impleaded as party, though he was affected by the relief sought in the writ petition. The State contested the writ petition by taking a plea that the petition was belated. Cause of action arose to the writ petitioners 14 years ago when they were deputed to operational wring. 4. Learned Single Judge held that since persons junior to the petitioners were allowed to shift to technical wing, case of the petitioners was required to be considered. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Preliminary submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that affected parties had right to be heard as their seniority will be disturbed by the relief sought and granted by the learned Single Judge. 7. Mr. Patwalia for the original writ petitioners fairly accepts that affected parties were required to be impleaded and heard. 8. In view of the above, we need not go into merits. The matter L.P.A. No. 199 of 2009 3 has to be remitted to learned Single Judge so that Mr. Patwalia can take necessary steps for impleading the affected parties and decision can be arrived at after hearing them. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge, for a fresh decision on merits. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 5, 2009 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE