IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1115 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 29.10.2009 Nem Singh. -----Appellant Vs. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition against reversion. 2. The appellant was earlier employed with Haryana Tanneries Limited, a public sector undertaking, which was wound up and the appellant was retrenched from service. On filing C.W.P. No.9469 of 1988 in this Court, order dated 1.12.1988 was passed and direction was issued to employ the retrenched employees in any other organization without taking into account their past service. Accordingly, the appellant was offered appointment in Market Committee on 8.12.1989 on the condition that his past service will not be counted. The appellant accepted LPA No.1115 of 2009 the appointment and joined on 8.1.1990. Thereafter, by counting past service, the appellant was given promotion, but when mistake was noticed, the appellant was reverted, after he had already worked for more than four years on promotional post. This was challenged. Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition in view of earlier directions of this Court and in view of conditions of appointment which were accepted by the appellant. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Contention raised is that since earlier also the appellant had served with public sector undertaking, he was entitled to count the past service. It was next submitted that the appellant was allowed to work for four years on the promotional post. Reversion, at this stage, will operate harshly. 5. We are unable to accept the submissions. The issue of past service is concluded by earlier judgment of this Court and it is not disputed that if past service is not counted, the appellant could not get the promotion. No doubt the reversion will operate harshly against the appellant but the order having been passed to rectify the mistake, there is no error in the view taken that the order of reversion was not liable to be interfered with. 6. Dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE October 29, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 2