CWP No.11029 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 25.02.2010 Virender Kumar ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. JK Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.RS Kundu, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer through Employment Exchange on ad hoc basis vide order dated 14.09.1982. The vacancy occupied by the petitioner was, however, advertised along with other vacancies by the Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”), Haryana. The petitioner applied in response to the advertisement issued by the Board. On completion of the process of selection, the petitioner was recommended for appointment vide Memo dated 18.12.1985. The petitioner claimed regularisation of his services from the date of initial appointment on the basis of the recommendation of the Board. However, vide letter dated CWP No.11029 of 2009 2 08.04.1993, the services of the petitioner were regularised with effect from 31.12.1990. It is alleged that respondent No.4 was also recommended along with the petitioner who was granted benefit of regularisation with effect from 18.12.1985, whereas the petitioner has been denied the said benefit. On account of the regularisation of the services of respondent No.4, he was placed over and above the petitioner in the tentative seniority list circulated vide circular dated 31.05.2008. Respondent No.4 was placed at Serial No.80 whereas the petitioner was placed at Serial No.111in the tentative seniority list. It is stated that respondent No.4 was granted benefit of regularisation pursuant to the directions of the Court passed in CWP No.7732 of 1993. The petitioner is also claiming the same benefit. A copy of the judgment passed in the above said writ petition is placed on record as Annexure P-11 with the writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. From the perusal of the judgment dated 2.11.1993, it is apparent that the petitioner is similarly situated as respondent No.4. He was also recommended for appointment vide the same communication dated 18.12.1989. Respondent No.4 has been granted benefit of seniority with effect from the said date. The petitioner cannot be denied the same treatment. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The petitioner shall also be entitled to the benefit of seniority with effect from the date respondent No.4 has been granted the benefit and the CWP No.11029 of 2009 3 petitioner's seniority will be fixed accordingly on the basis of the inter se merit. The petitioner shall not be entitled to any arrears, though notional benefit shall be granted to him for the purpose of fixation of pay, salary etc. 25.02.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE