Civil Writ Petition No. 15194 of 2008 ***** Khazan Sinigh Versus State of Haryana and others Present: Ms. Harmanjeet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. ***** The petitioner was appointed by way of selection as Helper Upholsterer. His services were terminated on 16.12.1990. Aggrieved against the same he raised Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court, Gurgaon. The reference was answered in his favour and the termination order was set aside being illegal and unjustified. The labour Court, also held the petitioner entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. Order in this regard is Annexure P-1. The award passed by the labour Court was challenged by way of CWP No. 6494 of 2000 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The High Court has upheld the reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service but reduced the payment of back wages to 50% from the date of his termination to the date of his reinstatement. The petitioner accordingly was taken back in service on 8.4.2005. He has now made a claim for grant of promotion from the date his juniors were promoted. The claim of the petitioner is resisted by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner had joined service on 28.6.2005 whereas respondent No.4 Sanjay Kumar was appointed as Upholsterer post on 1.2.1996 and promoted as Assistant Civil Writ Petition No. 15194 of 2008 -2- Upholsterer on 29.11.2004. Respondent No.5 was appointed as Helper Upholsterer on 1.4.1993 and was promoted as Assistant Upholsterer on 8.6.1995 and further as Upholsterer on 1.3.2002. From this it is stated that the petitioner was out of service when the respondents were promoted and as such it is not a case of his juniors being promoted as is being made out. The stand of the respondent apparently is unjust. Merely because the petitioner had joined service on being reinstated subsequent to the appointment/promotion of respondents would not make these persons to become senior to the petitioner. Once the labour Court has allowed the claim of the petitioner with direction to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, he would be entitled to claim the benefit of entire service rendered by him. It would thus mean that he was never out of service. Accordingly, it cannot be said that on the date when respondents No. 4 and 5 were promoted the petitioner was not in service. He was very much in service in view of the order of his reinstatement with continuity of service, which is upheld by the High Court and has acquired finality. The case of the petitioner accordingly would require consideration for promotion from the date his juniors, respondents No. 4 and 5 have been promoted. As stated by the State counsel, the petitioner in the meantime has also been promoted. Accordingly the petitioner is required to be considered for promotion ahead of respondents No. 4 and 5. If the claim of the petitioner is so allowed then he shall be entitled to all consequential benefits which would also be released to the petitioner. Civil Writ Petition No. 15194 of 2008 -3- The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion in accordance with law from the date his juniors were promoted. August 04, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE