IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10132 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 27, 2010. Surinder Kumar Bhardwaj and another .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.R.K.Chopra, Senior Advocate with Ms.Maninder, Advocate, for the petitioners. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioners were appointed as Enumerators in the Industries Department under the Scheme sponsored by the Government of India. The said Scheme having been abolished, they were retrenched w.e.f. 31.7.1990. In terms of the Government Policy, it was decided to absorb the petitioners in other Government departments. They were accordingly absorbed in the Department of Cooperation and Treasury & Accounts, respectively. The petitioners, however, sought their absorption against suitable posts commensurate with the qualifications possessed by them. They also alleged discrimination in this regard. As the authorities did not accede to their requests, they approached this Court by way of a Civil Writ C.W.P.No .10132 of 2010 2 Petition No.3175 of 1996 (Surinder Kumar and others versus State of Punjab and others). The said writ petition alongwith other connection matters, was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.10.1996 (Annexure P-4), in the following terms:- “......In view of the above discussions, we allow the writ petitions and direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for absorption on suitable posts commensurate with their qualifications which they possessed at the time of their retrenchment from Industries Department and appropriate order be passed within four months of the submission of the certified copy of this order. We also direct the official respondents to keep in view the facts that other similarly situated persons have been absorbed on posts carrying pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 and Rs.1800-3200. Parties are left to bear their own costs.” In compliance to the directions reproduced above, both the petitioners were taken as Junior Auditors in the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, vide order dated 21.5.1997. It appears that the petitioners thereafter made a representation to grant the benefit of service rendered by them as Clerks, towards their seniority etc. in the Cadre of Junior Auditors. Their representation was turned down by the Director, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Punjab, vide order dated 4.3.2002 (Annexure P-6). The petitioners have now approached this Court to seek quashing of the said order dated 4.3.2002 (Annexure P-6). They also seek assignment of the deemed date of appointment as Junior Auditors with effect from the date when they C.W.P.No .10132 of 2010 3 were appointed as Clerks. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length, I am of the considered view that their claim is untenable in law for more than one reasons. Firstly, the impugned order declining the benefit of previous service towards seniority in the cadre of Junior Auditors, was passed 8 years back and no explanation much less worth acceptable, has come forth as to why the petitioners did not approach this Court and/or any other forum well within a reasonable period. The writ petition thus, suffers from delay and laches. Secondly, the relief regarding retrospective appointment against the suitable posts from the date when they were absorbed as Clerks could be claimed or is deemed to have been claimed by the petitioners in their previous writ petition which was allowed by this Court. It is implied in the directions reproduced above that the claim of the petitioners for appointment on higher posts was directed to be considered prospectively. Thirdly, the petitioners entered the cadre of Junior Auditors from the date when they joined as such under the directions of this court and they can be assigned seniority from the date of their appointment only. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the service rendered by the petitioners as clerks is not likely to be counted even towards the pension and other retiral benefits. In my considered view, the above-noticed apprehension expressed by the petitioners is wholly misconceived for the reason that the service rendered on regular basis is always counted towards `qualifying service' for the purpose of pension and consequential retiral dues. C.W.P.No .10132 of 2010 4 However, instead of expressing any final view in this regard at this stage when the respondents have not been heard, liberty is granted to the petitioners to represent to the authorities for the appropriate relief. If any such representation is made, the same shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of four months of its receipt. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Dasti. May 27, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE