IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 9824 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 BALWINDER SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Dr. ML Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give benefit of seniority and increments to the petitioner in terms of Rule 4.10 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I (for short 'the Rules'), for the period the petitioner was kept out of job by the respondents. It has been pleaded that the petitioner was selected as Physical Civil Writ Petition No. 9824 of 2009 2 Training Instructor vide order dated 25.11.2006 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner was allotted the station of posting on 8.12.2006 and was required to join at Chamirgarh, District Sangrur. The District Education Officer (Secondary Education), vide order dated 11.12.2006 (Annexure P- 6), amended Office Order dated 8.12.2006 on the ground that post of Physical Training Instructor was not lying vacant at Chamirgarh and, therefore, the petitioner was adjusted in Government Middle School, Phuld, District Sangrur. The petitioner submitted his joining report at Phuld, District Sangrur. The petitioner was allowed to join with effect from 12.12.2006, as is evident from Annexure P-7. Respondent No.2 (Director, Public Instructions (Secondary Education), Punjab) terminated the services of the petitioner vide order dated 9.8.2007 (Annexure P-8) on the ground that the petitioner had obtained 59.1835 marks in General Category (Male) whereas one Nacchattar Singh had obtained higher marks i.e. 60.55 marks. Nacchattar Singh had filed CWP 659 of 2007. This Court had directed that appointment be given to Nacchattar Singh. The petitioner filed CWP 12624 of 2007, which was listed along with CWP 9407 of 2007. Operation of order of termination was stayed. The relief, however, was not granted. The petitioner filed COCP 628 of 2008, which was dismissed as withdrawn as the respondent- Department had complied with the directions of the Court. Resultantly, the petitioner was allowed to join duty. The respondent-Department revised the merit list and issued Civil Writ Petition No. 9824 of 2009 3 Memo dated 17.8.2008 stating therein that the petitioner falls in revised merit list. After receipt of reappointment order, the petitioner joined the duty. It has been pleaded that the petitioner was appointed as Physical Training Instructor vide order dated 25.11.2006 and joined duty on 12.12.2006. Subsequent action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner was illegal. This is evident from the fact that the petitioner was reappointed and was allowed to join. In this view of the matter, the claim by way of this writ petition is for the benefits accruing in favour of the petitioner for the interregnum period, in terms of provisions of Rule 4.10 of the Rules. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has filed short affidavit dated 15.9.2009 of Shri Harbans Singh Sandhu, District Education Officer (Secondary Education), Mansa, today in Court, which is taken on record. It has been stated in the affidavit that the petitioner has been allowed seniority number as per the right of the petitioner, after taking the date of first joining of the petitioner viz. 12.12.2006, as deemed date of joining. The petitioner has also been notionally granted the benefit of annual increments for the period during which the petitioner remained out of service. Necessary entries in the Service Book of the petitioner have also been made. The petitioner has been paid arrears. Hence, the claim of the petitioner stands satisfied in terms of provisions of Rule 4.10 of the Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the Civil Writ Petition No. 9824 of 2009 4 above, the cause of action does not survive. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of as infructuous. September 16, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?