COCP No.1607 of 2008 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1607 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: August 28, 2009. ASI Harbhajan Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Shri N.P.S. Aulakh ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri R.R. Dhawan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent. ORDER Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner filed CWP No.17072 of 2005 praying for promotion from the date his juniors were promoted. The case of the petitioner was that one Sakattar Singh whose case was similar to that of the petitioner had filed a civil suit which was decided in his favour and the State's appeal was dismissed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision of the civil court was implemented in his case and the aforesaid Sakattar Singh was granted retrospective promotion as Inspector from the date his juniors in PAP were promoted. It is the further case of the petitioner that vide judgment dated 27.2.2008, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of with a direction to the COCP No.1607 of 2008 -: 2 :- respondents to consider his case in the light of the judgment dated 16.7.2005 passed by this Court in RSA No.2435 of 2004. It is the further case of the petitioner that in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 27.2.2008, the respondents passed a sketchy order dated 10.6.2008 vide Annexure P-3 inter-alia accepting the legality of the claim of the petitioner but further stating that the seniority of the petitioner cannot be fixed in isolation vis-a-vis his juniors as there could be thousands of employees situated between the two and the seniority of the petitioner has to be fixed in relation to all other employees who have to be placed either above him or below him. According to the petitioner, the respondents have disobeyed the directions passed by this Court. In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, an affidavit dated 8.12.2008 was filed in this court wherein it was submitted that the petitioner was informed vide order dated 10.6.2008 that his seniority is being recast by the Committee and this Court had extended the time limit for revising seniority list upto 28.2.2009 in a similar writ petition No.2153 of 2008 and therefore the seniority of the petitioner will be decided vis-a-vis all other similarly situated personnel. The respondent filed another affidavit dated 22.7.2009 wherein it was submitted that the claim of the petitioner was examined and the earlier order giving benefit of judgment in Sakattar Singh's case to the petitioner vide order dated 10.6.2008 was withdrawn by passing a speaking order dated 8.7.2009 and it was further submitted that the seniority of the petitioner will be decided vis-a-vis all other similarly situated personnel. It may also be noticed that during the pendency of this contempt petition, the petitioner was also issued a show cause notice as to why the benefit earlier granted to him be not withdrawn. COCP No.1607 of 2008 -: 3 :- The respondents also filed an affidavit dated 27.8.2009 to submit that the claim of the petitioner has been examined and benefit of the judgment in Sakattar Singh's case given to the petitioner vide order dated 10.6.2008 has been withdrawn by passing a speaking order dated 18.8.2009. A copy of this order has also been placed on record vide Annexure R-2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled to the benefit of Sakattar Singh's case as noticed by this Court while issuing directions to the respondents vide order dated 27.2.2008 passed in CWP No.17072 of 2005 and thus it cannot be said that by passing the speaking order dated 18.8.2009, the respondents have complied with the judgment of this court. On the other hand, the argument of learned State Counsel is that the direction was given to the respondents by this Court to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of this Court in Sakattar Singh's case and the speaking order Annexure R-1 dated 18.8.2009 has been passed after considering the judgment in Sakattar Singh's case and, thus, there is no disobedience on the part of the respondents and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the speaking orders passed by them, he can challenge the same in accordance with law. Keeping in view the fact that the case of the petitioner has been considered in the light of the judgment in Sakattar Singh's case, as directed by this Court, I find that there is no violation on the part of the respondents of the judgment dated 27.2.2008 passed in CWP No.17072 of 2005. I am not inclined to proceed further in this petition. COCP No.1607 of 2008 -: 4 :- Rule discharged. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the order dated 18.8.2009 attached as Annexure R-2 with the affidavit of Director General of Police, Punjab dated 27.8.2009. August 28, 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge