LPA No.488 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.488 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision 26.05.2011 Malkiat Kaur -----Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 29.04.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the appellant being the daughter of freedom fighter is entitled to appointment over and above respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who are grand children of the freedom fighter. Learned Single Judge held that the children of freedom fighter would have a superior right than the grand children. Accordingly, the appellant along with one Sarabjit Kaur, who was higher in order of merit were ordered to be given appointment. The learned Single Judge also directed that the appellant is to be treated senior to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the cadre of supervisor for the LPA No.488 of 2011 (O&M) -2- purposes of seniority and future promotion. They were not entitled to any arrears of pay but their pay was to be notionally fixed with effect from the date of appointment of respondent No.4. Despite the fact that the appellant has been given the appointment the instant appeal has been filed with the grievance that notional fixation of pay from the date of appointment of respondent No.4 is wholly unwarranted whereas it should have been given from the date of appointment of respondent No.3. 2. It is appropriate to mention that respondent No.4 was appointed as Supervisor on 17.12.2008 whereas respondent No.3 was appointed as such on 04.02.1997. The claim made by Mr. Arun Nehra, learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant deserved to be granted the benefit from 04.02.1997 when the same was given to respondent No.3 and to that extent the operative part of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge deserved to be modified. 3. Having heard learned counsel and perusing the paper book with his able assistance, we are of the considered view that there is no room for interference in the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge. The appellant had filed the writ petition on 27.08.2008 and could not have claimed the benefit of notional pay with effect from the date when respondent No. 3 was appointed i.e. 04.02.1997. The appellant has come to the Court near the time when respondent No.4 was given promotion and claimed the benefit of notional pay with effect from the date of appointment of LPA No.488 of 2011 (O&M) -3- respondent No.3, is wholly without any substance. If the appellant was aggrieved by the appointment of respondent No.3 in 1997 then he was required to approach this Court at that stage. No case for interference is made out. 4. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE May 26, 2011 Atul