CWP NO. 20512 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO. 20512 of 2008 Date of decision: 11.01.2010 Union of India and others ...Petitioners Versus Om Parkash and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.1. 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 9.5.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for brevity ` the Tribunal'). The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding in para 10 of its order that respondent No.1 (original applicant) was not transferred on his own request so as to lose his seniority in the cadre of `Khalasi' under IOW/Pathankot. The Tribunal has placed reliance on the order of transfer dated 9.5.2008 (R-1) to conclude that there would have been an express mention of the request made by the respondent in CWP NO. 20512 of 2008 2 his order if the transfer had been made in 1984 and the effect to the said order was sought to be given in the year 2003. During the interregnum, the petitioner has passed the trade test. From the post of Helper, he was promoted to the post of Fitter Gr.III in the year 1995 on the basis of qualifying the trade test and his undisturbed seniority. It was in the year 2003 that he was sought to be deprived of seniority and he was sought to be reverted to the post of Helper. Having heard the learned counsel, we do not find any legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Once the Authority had always counted his original seniority as the basis for conferring benefits of promotion etc. till 2003 it was not open after such a long time to disturb his seniority and revert him to a lower post of Helper. There is thus no ground to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant petition fails and the same is dismissed with costs, which we quantified at Rs.10,000/-. The costs shall be paid to respondent No.1 within a period of three months. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE 11.01.2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE