C.W.P No. 10477 of 2006 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 10477 of 2006 Date of decision : January 19, 2009 Rajinder Kumar, ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and others ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. J.P.Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This writ petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioner had joined Haryana Roadways as contractual Driver during the strike period in 1993 and that thereafter the Haryana Government has appointed all such persons but the same benefit has not been granted to the petitioner. In reply, it is stated that after the first period of contractual appointment of the petitioner was over, he was issued five appointment letters on contractual basis but he never joined. Some other persons who C.W.P No. 10477 of 2006 ::2:: had been appointed like the petitioner filed writ petitions before this Court in the years 1997 and 1998 claiming that they should be offered regular appointments. That matter was ultimately taken up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court where an order dated 16.1.2004 came to be passed directing the State of Haryana that all such persons who were petitioners in writ petitions before this Court would be accommodated against the vacancies wherever available. It is thereafter that the petitioner moved a representation dated 13.9.2004 i.e after a period of almost 11 years when the first period of contractual service had come to an end, claiming regular appointment in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 16.1.2004. It is further averred that the petitioner has lost whatsoever right he may have because of his action in not joining service in terms of the orders, Annexures R-1 to R-7 and because of his continued silence for such a long period. In my opinion, the stand of the respondents cannot be held to be unjustified. The petitioner having slept over his rights for 11 years cannot now be heard to claim benefits which were granted to other persons who continued in job on contractual basis or otherwise. Finding no merit in this writ petition, the same is dismissed with, however, no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 19, 2009. JUDGE `kk'