IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1165 of 2009 Date of decision: January 27, 2009 Manjeet Bhatt & others ... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. V.S. Punia, Advocate for the petitioners. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral) The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders dated 09.02.2004/11.03.2004 whereby they were reinstated in service as per their initial appointment letters but the same was treated as fresh appointment and they were not given benefits of continuity of service. The sole reliance of learned counsel for the petitioners is on order dated 20.05.2008 whereby this Court directed the respondents to decide the representation of allegedly similarly situated employees for the said benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that in this case also a representation is pending and similar order be passed. In my opinion, this writ petition does not deserve to succeed. Admittedly, the order by which the petitioner are aggrieved was passed about five years ago. Even the representations of the petitioners have been made on 21.07.2008 CWP No.1165 of 2009 -2- after taking the benefit of the order dated 20.05.2008. The contention that the petitioners are making only innocuous prayer for decision of representation also in my opinion does not cut any ice because the fact remain that the petitioners have allowed 5 years period to elapse before raising any grouse. It cannot be denied that in case now the petitioners are granted this benefit (either by the department or by this Court) it would impact the seniority of other employees who are not before this Court. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. January 27, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE