IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21575 of 2008 Date of Decision: October 07, 2010 Paramjit Singh & others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Saurabh Bhardwaj, Advocate, for Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing respondent No.2 viz. Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Transport, to consider and implement the recommendations of 3rd Punjab Pay Commission in regard to skilled and semi-skilled staff as per Instructions dated 26.10.1988 (Annexure P-2). CWP No.21575 of 2008 [2] 2. It has been brought out in Para 12 of the petition that this Court vide Order dated 27.9.2007 (Annexure P-7) passed in Civil Miscellaneous No.17331 of 2005 in Civil Writ Petition No.711 of 1999, directed the respondents to take decision on representation within four months of receipt of copy of the order. Since needful had not been done, Contempt of Court Petition was filed. Reliance has been placed on Annexure P-10 i.e. Order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the Director, State Transport, Punjab, vide which it has been said in the following terms:- “The Union vide its representation Annexure P-7 has demanded to promote the Helpers and cleaners as per the recommendation of Third Pay Commission. These promotions were to be made by the department after amending the service Rules as per the recommendations of Third Pay Commission. Prior to issue of court notification regarding amended service Rules after including the recommendation of Third Pay Commission, the Fourth Pay Commission issued to new recommendations. Now the matter to include the recommendations of both Third and Fourth Pay Commission is under consideration of the Government. Therefore the demands of Union shall be disposed off after receiving the approval of Govt. Regarding Workshop Service Rules. The orders are passed to implement the decision dated 27.9.07 of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court.” 3. Learned counsel for the respondent- State has filed a document dated 31.8.2010 issued by the Office of Director, State Transport, Punjab. Following are the contents of the document:- “1. That the petitioners No.1 & 2 relate to Electrician CWP No.21575 of 2008 [3] Trade in workshop staff. The final seniority list of this trade has been prepared vide letter No.5/32/08-5SE2/ 7365, dated: 17-7-2009. The names of the petitioners stand at Sr. No.87A and 93 respectively. The officials up to Sr. No.65 of this seniority list have been promoted. The petitioners shall be considered for promotion on their turn as per seniority. 2. The petitioners No.3, 5, 7 and 8 belong to Mechanic trade. The final seniority list of this trade has been prepared vide letter No.5/33/08-6SE2-10300, dated: 9-7-2010. The officials of mechanic trade have been promoted up to Sr. No.263 of this seniority list. The names of the petitioners No.3, 5, 7 and 8 respectively stand at Sr. No.331, 332, 304 and 306 in this seniority list and they shall be considered for promotion on their turn. 3. The petitioner No.4 belongs to Carpenter trade. The final seniority list of this trade has been prepared vide letter No.5/28/08-5SE2/538, dated: 15-1-2010. His name stands at Sr. No.78 of the seniority list whereas officials upto Sr. No.55 have been promoted. 4. The petitioner No.6 Sh. Darshan Kumar has opted to include his name in the upholster trade. The Final seniority list of this trade is being prepared. The petitioner shall be considered for promotion as per his turn in the seniority list.” 4. On perusal of the document, it transpires that the respondents are considering the promotion of the petitioners as per their seniority. In certain cases, final seniority list is being prepared and the persons would be considered for promotion in terms of seniority. 5. In view of the above, no cause of action survives in the petition and the same is disposed of as infructuous. (AJAI LAMBA) October 07, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? CWP No.21575 of 2008 [4] 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?