IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.19447 of 2009 Date of decision : 2.2.2011 Joint Action Committee Retrenched Employees, Haryana ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. H.S.Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the respondent. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This petition has been filed by Joint Action Committee Retrenched Employees, Haryana through its General Secretary with a detailed list of the persons who are the members of the Union as mentioned in the list annexed as Annexure P-1. The grievance of the petitioner is that most of the members except for two or three are from the erstwhile Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation from where their services were retrenched as the Corporation faced closure. Subsequently after number of writ petitions were filed, the Supreme Court recognized the right of such like persons who were rendered surplus from the Corporation on account of its closure to get pecuniary benefits on account of services rendered by them in the Haryana State Minor C.W.P.No.19447 of 2009 -2- Irrigation Tubewell Corporation. The grievance of the petitioner is that the judgment is being applied selectively and not uniformly and the members of the Union are being deprived of the benefit of ACP by not counting their services rendered in the Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation even though they have been absorbed in various Departments of the Government. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised an objection that the writ petition by the Union is not maintainable and, therefore, it should be dismissed on this ground alone. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is valid. The grievance of the members of the Union cannot be agitated by an umbrella organisation/association as there are individual causes of action which have to be addressed separately. The facts of each individual may differ and the respondents are very well within their right to raise such an objection, as in the absence of scrutiny of individual cases the relief as sought by the petitioner cannot be granted uniformly. Thus, the petition is dismissed. However, the members of the Union shall have the liberty to make individual representations to the respondents to plead their cases by giving necessary facts and in such eventuality the respondents shall examine such representations and dispose them of within four months of their receipt by applying the judgment in State of Haryana v. Deepak Sood. 2.2.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss