LPA No.373 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No.373 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.03.2010 Haryana Gramin Bank ....Appellant. Versus Dinesh Chander Kathpalia and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. P.K. Dutt, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Yashdeep Singh, Advocate for the caveator. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. For the reasons shown, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. Present appeal is filed challenging the order dated 11.9.2009 passed by learned Single Judge whereby application for incorporating modification in the earlier judgement of learned Single Judge dated 3.4.2007, was allowed. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that petitioner No.1 was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the bank; Banking Service Recruitment Board invited applications for the post of Field Supervisor in various Regional Banks located in the State of Haryana by way of direct recruitment vide advertisement dated 24.1.1990. Petitioner applied for the said post and LPA No.373 of 2010 2 was selected. However, he was not given appointment on the ground that the posts of Field Supervisors were abolished with retrospective effect. The petitioner challenged the action of the respondents in CWP 3157 of 1992, which was allowed vide judgement dated 3.4.2007, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the bank forthwith against the post of OJM-1. 4. The petitioner moved an application contending that during the pendency of the writ petition, respondent No.2 again issued an advertisement for filling up two posts of OJM-1 and pursuant to the advertisement of 1993, the petitioner moved an application i.e. CM No.275 of 1993 in the writ petition in which it was ordered that any appointment to the post of OJM-1 made by the respondent – Bank would be subject to the decision of the present petition. Parveen Kumar Jain was appointed as OJM-1 with effect from 1.1.1993. However, the petitioner was appointed in pursuance to the order dated 3.4.2007. The petitioner is being treated as junior to Parveen Kumar Jain and was being paid less salary than Parveen Kumar Jain, who was appointed during the pendency of the writ petition, which was ultimately allowed in favour of the petitioner. 5 Learned Single Judge vide impugned judgement dated 11.9.2009 modified the order dated 3.4.2007 to the extent that the respondents shall fix seniority of petitioner No.1 above the persons, who were appointed against the advertisement issued in the year 1992-93 and whose appointment was subject to the decision of the writ petition. The respondents were further directed to step-up the pay of the petitioner above those persons. However, arrears were denied. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused LPA No.373 of 2010 3 the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that since Parveen Kumar Jain was appointed pursuant to the subsequent advertisement issued in the year 1993 and the petitioner was appointed after Parveen Kumar Jain, on the direction of the Court, hence the petitioner cannot be treated senior to Parveen Kumar Jain. Another argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that since the post against which the petitioner was selected was abolished at that time, hence the petitioner cannot be treated senior to Parveen Kumar Jain. 8. We are not inclined to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant – bank for the reasons that the petitioner was selected pursuant to the previous advertisement and when he was not given appointment, he had preferred writ petition in the year 1992. When fresh advertisement was issued by the appellant against which Parveen Kumar Jain was appointed, an interim order was passed by this Court that any appointment made shall be subject to the final decision of the writ petition, hence appointment of Parveen Kumar Jain was subject to the decision in the writ petition and once the writ petition was allowed directing the appellant to appoint the petitioner, hence the petitioner would automatically be senior to Parveen Kumar Jain. 9. No other point was pressed. 10. Appeal is devoid of merit and hence, is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) 26.03.2010 Judge sk.