C.W.P No. 1630 of 2009 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 1630 of 2009 Date of decision : May 12, 2009 Raj Singh and another, ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. S.K.Redhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for the respondents. *** 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 The petitioners by way of this writ petition seek selection to B- 1 Course under 35% quota on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. The petitioners were appointed as Constable in Haryana Police on 5.9.1985 and 3.10.1989 respectively. Their claim for selection to B-1 (Lower School Course) for 2004 has been rejected on the ground that they could not get required merit as compared to respondents No.5 to 8. The controversy in the present case is squarely covered by the C.W.P No. 1630 of 2009 ::2:: decision of a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 19965 of 2006, Balraj Singh and others vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 22.10.2008, which was a case relating to the year 2003. In that case also, the respondents had taken similar pleas to those which have been taken in the instant case. In both the cases it was averred that the private respondents though junior to the petitioners stole a march over them due to better performance. The point of delay was also urged on the ground that the impugned selection was of the year 2003. The Division Bench ultimately held as follows :- “ We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. As far as the objections of the respondents with regard to the delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court is concerned, the same deserves to be rejected as the respondents are required to implement the judgments on an issue which has been finally been adjudicated upon by this Court and has attained finality. For implementing the judgment, the respondents should not wait qua the similarly placed employees to approach the Court and then get orders from this Court on similar grounds. This is against the public policy and adds to the burden of the Courts as well. The State is required to act in a responsible manner and should enhance and assist the justice delivery system rather than adding to the burden of the already over burdened system. On various occasions, this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court C.W.P No. 1630 of 2009 ::3:: have held that similarly placed employees should not be forced to approach the Courts time and again for the same relief which the Court has adjudicated upon and which has attained finality. In the present case, initially the judgment was passed by this Court, which was challenged by the respondents in the Hon'ble Supreme Court but the appeal preferred by the respondents was dismissed. Thus, the said judgment has attained finality. The Government realizing that the judgment affected a large number of similarly situated employees, issued office memo. No.1600-37/T-2 dated 13.2.2007 which was required to be followed by the State in letter and spirit. Instead of doing so, the State forced them time and again to approach this Court for the similar relief which they are legally entitled to. Instead of following and granting the same relief to the similarly placed employees, the respondents cannot be now allowed to take a hyper technical objection of limitation to defeat the claim of the petitioners. It would not be out of place to mention here that this Court has recently vide its order dated 14.5.2008, allowed a bunch of 42 writ petitions claiming the same relief as the petitioners are claiming in these writ petitions and now it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to take an objection of limitation in this present set of writ petitions. This objection of the respondents is, thus, rejected. C.W.P No. 1630 of 2009 ::4:: We are of the considered view that the claim of the petitioners deserves to be considered in the light of the Division Bench judgment in Naresh Kumar's case (supra) which has attained finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners and all similarly placed persons who have been deputed to the Lower School Course subsequent to the deputing of their juniors and have passed the said Course after their juniors for deciding their claim of seniority over and above them and also to consider the claim of petitioners and all similarly placed persons, for including their names in List B of selected Constables for admission to the Lower Course Course, in accordance with the judgment passed by this Court in Naresh Kumar's case (supra) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The respondents are further directed to depute all similarly placed persons, including the petitioners, to the Lower School Course in accordance with the seniority in their prescribed quota of 35% seats provided they fulfill the requirements of the Rules as interpreted by this Court in Naresh Kumar's case (supra). These persons shall be deemed to have qualified the Lower School Course from the date the other Constables junior C.W.P No. 1630 of 2009 ::5:: to them have qualified the same. It is, however, made clear that if by getting retrospective date of passing the Lower School Course the persons, including the petitioners, become eligible for promotion, they will get only deemed benefits without getting any actual financial benefits, in view of the principle of `no work no pay' as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another vs Tarsem Lal and others, 2006 (10) SCC 145.” Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as CWP No.19965 of 2006. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 12, 2009. JUDGE `kk'