IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 1550 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 29, 2011 Jitender Kumar and others ...Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'B HON'B HON'B HON'BLE M LE M LE M LE MR. JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH Present: Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate, for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the view taken by the learned Single Judge while disposing of a bunch of writ petitions, including CWP No. 5791 of 2008 on 03.08.2010. The writ petitioner-respondents have challenged the seniority list and the order dated 12/13.12.2006 (Annexure P-3). The short issue raised by the appellants in this appeal is whether the date of occurrence of vacancy would constitute a basis for determination of seniority of a member of the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch). The L.P.A. No. 1550 of 2011 (O&M) 2 aforesaid question has to be obviously answered in the negative by the learned Single Judge and in that regard reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India Union of India Union of India Union of India v. v. v. v. S.S. Uppal S.S. Uppal S.S. Uppal S.S. Uppal, 1996 (1) RSJ 700 , 1996 (1) RSJ 700 , 1996 (1) RSJ 700 , 1996 (1) RSJ 700. Reliance has also been placed on other Supreme Court judgments rendered in the cases of Ajit Kumar Rath Ajit Kumar Rath Ajit Kumar Rath Ajit Kumar Rath v. v. v. v. State of State of State of State of Orissa Orissa Orissa Orissa, AIR 2000 SC 85; AIR 2000 SC 85; AIR 2000 SC 85; AIR 2000 SC 85; Jagdish Ch. Patnaik Jagdish Ch. Patnaik Jagdish Ch. Patnaik Jagdish Ch. Patnaik v. v. v. v. State of Orissa State of Orissa State of Orissa State of Orissa, AIR , AIR , AIR , AIR 1998 SC 1926 1998 SC 1926 1998 SC 1926 1998 SC 1926; and P. Mohan Reddy P. Mohan Reddy P. Mohan Reddy P. Mohan Reddy v. v. v. v. E.A.A. Charles E.A.A. Charles E.A.A. Charles E.A.A. Charles, , , , 2001 (2) RSJ 2001 (2) RSJ 2001 (2) RSJ 2001 (2) RSJ 122 122 122 122. The learned Single Judge has held that the date of substantive appointment cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of vacancy and seniority has to be reckoned from the date of substantive appointment. Reliance in that regard has been placed on the view taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Uttaranchal State of Uttaranchal State of Uttaranchal State of Uttaranchal v. v. v. v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma Dinesh Kumar Sharma Dinesh Kumar Sharma Dinesh Kumar Sharma, (2007) , (2007) , (2007) , (2007) 1 SCC 683 1 SCC 683 1 SCC 683 1 SCC 683 and Major General R.S. Balyan ajor General R.S. Balyan ajor General R.S. Balyan ajor General R.S. Balyan v. v. v. v. Secretary, Ministry of Secretary, Ministry of Secretary, Ministry of Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India Defence, Government of India Defence, Government of India Defence, Government of India, (2007) 1 SCC 513 , (2007) 1 SCC 513 , (2007) 1 SCC 513 , (2007) 1 SCC 513. 2. At the outset it is pertinent to notice that the judgment dated 3.8.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge has already been assailed in LPA No. 1796 of 2010 (Ram Swarup Verma and LPA No. 1796 of 2010 (Ram Swarup Verma and LPA No. 1796 of 2010 (Ram Swarup Verma and LPA No. 1796 of 2010 (Ram Swarup Verma and others v. State of Haryana and others) others v. State of Haryana and others) others v. State of Haryana and others) others v. State of Haryana and others). The Letters Patent Bench of this Court approved the view taken by the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 22.12.2010 passed in the aforementioned appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to controvert this factual position. He could not cite any contrary judgment to the view taken by the Letters Patent Bench in orders dated 22.12.2010. L.P.A. No. 1550 of 2011 (O&M) 3 3. In view of the above, this appeal is also dismissed in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Ram Swarup Verma Ram Swarup Verma Ram Swarup Verma Ram Swarup Verma and others and others and others and others v. v. v. v. State of Haryana State of Haryana State of Haryana State of Haryana and others and others and others and others ( ( ( (LPA No. 1796 of 2010 LPA No. 1796 of 2010 LPA No. 1796 of 2010 LPA No. 1796 of 2010, , , , decided on 22.12.2010) decided on 22.12.2010) decided on 22.12.2010) decided on 22.12.2010). (M.M (M.M (M.M (M.M. KUMAR) . KUMAR) . KUMAR) . KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH) August 29 August 29 August 29 August 29, 2011 , 2011 , 2011 , 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Pkapoor