L.P.A. No. 835 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 835 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.12.2009. Surjeet Mohan Gupta and another ....Appellants Versus Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited and others ....Respondents. CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh. Present:- Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellants. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.(ORAL) 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition of the appellants against the order dated 17.3.2009 rejecting their claim for seniority over and above that of private respondents. 2. The appellants are employed as Foreman Grade-I with the respondent Haryana State Electricity Board. Private respondents are employed as Junior Engineers. They form part of cadre of Engineering Subordinates as defined under the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Electrical) Recruitment Regulations, 1965. 3. The appellants were appointed in the year 1989/1990. The private respondents were also appointed around the same time. The appellants raised dispute for the first time by way of representation dated 20.1.2009 claiming to be placed above the private respondents on the ground that the training period undergone by the respondents could not be counted as service for the purpose of seniority. This representation was duly considered and rejected by way of order dated 17.3.2009 by relying upon instructions dated 11.2.1991 and 27.3.1991 and further stating that ranking given in the seniority list circulated in L.P.A. No. 835 of 2009 (O&M) -2- the year 2007 against which representation was made was reiteration of ranking in seniority list circulated on 9.4.1996 by updating the earlier list. Even in the list circulated in the year 1996, the training period of private respondents was duly counted as part of service for seniority, in accordance with the instructions in question. 4. Aggrieved by the order rejecting their representation, the appellants filed writ petition. Contention raised was that training period could not be counted as period of service for seniority. Administrative instructions so providing, were in conflict with the regulations. As per the information furnished to the appellants under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the training period was not to be counted for seniority in respect of the staff appointed prior to 29.1.1990. 5. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellants approached the Court 12 years after accrual of cause of action. Moreover the appellants were aware of the instructions for training period being counted for the purpose of seniority. In the seniority list, as far as back in the year 1996, the said period was shown to have been counted. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Following contentions have been raised. (i) Period of training could not be counted for seniority even if it was so provided under the instructions as the respondents became part of the cadre only after their appointment, after training period was over. (ii) Appellant No.2 was appointed to the Cadre of Engineering Subordinates after the date of circulation of earlier seniority in the year 1996 and thus he had no opportunity to challenge the seniority list earlier circulated. 8. We do not find any merit in the contentions raised. 9. It has not been shown that the instructions providing for training period being counted as part of service for seniority have not been universally followed for the last about 18 years. In the list circulated in the year 1996, period L.P.A. No. 835 of 2009 (O&M) -3- of training was duly reflected in the seniority list. Even after the appellants were recruited to the Cadre of Engineering Subordinates, they kept quiet till the representation dated 21.2.2009 was made. Long standing seniority cannot be reopened at this stage in absence of any compelling reason. 10. The contention that the said instructions are against the regulation can also not be accepted. The regulations relied upon do not deal with the seniority. The regulations do not debar service during training being counted for seniority. Thus there is no conflict of the instructions with the regulation. 11. In view of above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 12. Dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (ALOK SINGH) December 21, 2009. JUDGE Reema