CWP No.10739-CAT of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: CWP No.10739-CAT of 2004 DATE OF DECISION: January 19, 2009 PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL(A&E) ...PETITIONER PUNJAB AND ANOTHER VERSUS SH. KRISHAN PAL & ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. PRESENT: MR. D.R. SHARMA , ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. SWARAN SANDHIR, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner has impugned the order Annexures P-3 and P-5 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short 'the Tribunal') vide which the directions were issued to the petitioners to consider the case of the respondent No.1 for the post of Halwai by way of direct recruitment as he had been working for a period of more than 11 years. Respondent No.1 was working on the post of Halwai in the departmental canteen of Principal Accountant General (A&E) Punjab, Chandigarh since 10.2.1992. Respondent No.1 filed an application for regularization of his services in the year 2002, before the Department which was rejected vide order Annexure A-1. The rejection of the application was challenged by respondent No.1 before the Central Administrative Tribunal which has been allowed vide order Annexure P-3. Against the order CWP No.10739-CAT of 2004 -2- Annexure P-3, a review application was filed by the Department which has been rejected vide order Annexure P-5. A perusal of orders (Annexure P-3 & P-5) shows that the petitioner-Department has been directed to consider the case of the employee for appointment as Halwai against direct recruitment as he had been working for more than 11 years. The Department considered the case of the respondent-employee and has ordered his regularization during the pendency of the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the employee is not entitled to be regularized because the post of Halwai could only be filled up through promotion and not by way of direct recruitment. After going through the orders (Annexures P-3 & P-5), we find that the Tribunal had only issued directions for considering the case of respondent No.1 to the post of Halwai, but no specific directions for his appointment were made. Apart from the above, there is no feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Halwai, therefore, the post had to be filled up by way of direct recruitment. In the present case respondent No.1 had already been working for more than 11 years and therefore, his regularization on the said post in departmental canteen is absolutely justified. We find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE January 19, 2009 (NIRMALJIT KAUR) Gulati JUDGE