C.W.P. No.8175 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.8175 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: MAY 27, 2009 Surjeet Mohan Gupta and another .....PETITIONERS Versus Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited, Panchkula and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the petitioners. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioners, who were working as Junior Engineers-I in PTPS, Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited, Panipat, have filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 17.3.2009 (Annexure P1), whereby the representation of the petitioners against the ranking list circulated vide Memo dated 10.11.2008, has been rejected. In the representation, the prayer of the petitioners was that respondents No.3 and 4 cannot be made senior to the petitioners by counting the period of their training as Junior Engineers towards seniority. In the impugned order, it has been mentioned that the training period of respondents No.3 and 4 was counted for the purpose of seniority in view of the departmental instructions dated 11.2.1991 and 27.3.1991, Annexures P6 and P7, respectively. It has been further mentioned that the ranking position C.W.P. No.8175 of 2009 -2- of respondents No.3 and 4, as circulated in the Circular dated 10.11.2007, is the same as contained in the earlier ranking list circulated by the respondent-Corporation vide Memo dated 9.4.1996. It is the case of the petitioners that both the petitioners were appointed as Junior Engineers on 28.9.1989 and 19.5.1990, respectively, whereas respondents No.3 and 4, who were appointed as Junior Engineer/Thermal (Trainees) w.e.f. 14.9.1989, were regularly appointed as Junior Engineers w.e.f. 1.6.1990 while curtailing their training period as Junior Engineer trainees. In the year 1996, a seniority list of the Junior Engineers was circulated and in that seniority list, respondents No.3 and 4 were shown senior to the petitioners while taking into consideration their period of training in which they worked as Junior Engineer/Thermal (Trainees) in view of instructions Annexures P6 and P7. The validity of these instructions is not under challenge. It is admitted position that the petitioners did not challenge the ranking list/seniority list circulated in the year 1996 in which both the respondents were shown senior while taking into consideration the service rendered by them as Junior Engineer/Thermal (Trainees). It is further conceded position that several other Junior Engineer/Thermal (Trainees) have been given the benefit of training period towards seniority. In these facts, now after twelve years of the issuance of the seniority list, in my opinion, the petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge the ranking list/seniority list on the ground that the training period of some of the employees has been wrongly taken into account while fixing their seniority. The petitioners were very much aware that both the respondents were made senior to them in the year 1996, but the said action of the respondents was C.W.P. No.8175 of 2009 -3- not challenged. In the gradation list/seniority list circulated in the year 2008, no change has been made in the seniority list except adding the names of the left over employees and their respective position. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners did not challenge the seniority list, which was issued in the year 1996, because the same was not got noted from them and that the name of petitioner No.2 was not figuring in the same. This contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted, particularly when the petitioners neither challenged the seniority list circulated in the year 1996 nor filed any representation in that regard. Now twelve years after arising of the cause of action, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners. Even the limitation for challenging the said action by filing the civil suit has expired. In my opinion, the present petition suffers from delay and laches as the petitioners have not given any explanation for the inordinate delay in challenging the impugned seniority list. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this petition at this belated stage. Dismissed. May 27, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE