IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9887 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision:11.03.2010 Bhagwan Singh and others ....Petitioners versus Food Corporation of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Jaspal Singh Maanipur, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate, for respondents 1 to 4. Mr. G.N. Malik, Advocate, for respondents 5 to 14 and 16 to 21. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers 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 ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) CM No.3406 of 2010 1. The application is for making some corrections found in the order dated 22.02.2010. The name of the counsel for the respondents 5 to 14 and 16 to 21 has been wrongly referred to as Mr. Harinder Kumar. It shall be substituted as Mr. G.N. Malik, Advocate. The counsel Mr. G.N.Malik states that reference in the order that the counsel for the respondents had no objectin to the seniority list to be worked in a particular manner is not correct. He has objection to the seniority list in the manner which is sought to be prepared by the petitioners and the Civil Writ Petition No.9887 of 2008 (O&M) - 2 - respondents. The correction is again effected to the extent that the reference shall be to the counsel for the petitioners and the respondents 1 to 4. The correction shall be carried out by the Registry in the docket order dated 22.02.2010 and placed in the file. Civil Writ Petition No.9887 of 2008 2. On the basis of the order issued on 22.02.2010, the counsel for the petitioners and the respondents 1 to 4 have attempted to reconcile the issue of seniority in the manner which has been put in place by the respondents 1 to 4 as set out in Annexures 1 and 2. It is in full congruity in all aspects except that the names of the persons, who have retired or dead, have also been included in the list. The counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 points out that the persons in serial No.1 and 2 have since retired, they could be excluded from the list. The counsel for the petitioners himself admits that the persons at serial Nos. 7, 10, 15, 16, 18, 19, 27, 37, 41, 42, 46, 47, 56, 57, 63, 66, 67, 70, 71, 76, 87, 93, 97, 103, 104 and 106 have expired and the names could be removed from the list of persons for the FSD, Nabha. In respect of the seniority list for CWC Buffer Complex, Nabha, the only mistake in the list pointed out by the counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 is the names of persons in serial No.3 and 39 have to be inter-changed. As regards persons in serial No.4, 5, 19 and 28, they have died and their names have to be removed. The list given by the counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 shall form part of the record and the seniority shall be worked out on that basis. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 14 and 16 to 21 has objections to the seniority as has been agreed to Civil Writ Petition No.9887 of 2008 (O&M) - 3 - between the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 4. His grievance is that his clients are persons, who had been employed under independent Contractors and when the DPS system was introduced, there was a seniority list prepared on the basis of which PF numbers have been assigned and when that seniority ought to be maintained. The policy which has been adopted by the respondents 1 to 4 for the persons who had already been employed before 01.04.1997, the date when the DPS system was introduced, the seniority would be as though all of them were employed from 01.04.1997 and the inter se seniority will be determined on the basis of date of birth, is not a sound policy. According to him, the seniority will have to be taken only on the basis of the seniority as it existed even before 01.04.1997. 4. The respondents themselves have not come on challenge in the manner in which the policy was spelt out but the learned counsel for the respondents Shri Malik states that they were not aggrieved about the manner in which the seniority had been worked out previously and, therefore, they are entitled to point out that by the manner of seniority agreed to between the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 4 now, their interests are being compromised and it affects against them directly. The policy was spelt out as early as in the year 1997 in the manner which the respondents 1 to 4 have worked out, has not been so far challenged by the private respondents and I am afraid, they shall not be permitted to object to the list now. However, I still give to them the liberty to place their objections which may be considered by the respondents 1 to 4. As of now the seniority which has been agreed to between the petitioner and Civil Writ Petition No.9887 of 2008 (O&M) - 4 - the respondents 1 to 4 shall operate and the respondents 5 to 14 and 16 to 21 shall have no right to object to the same at present. On a representation from private respondents, the respondents 1 to 4 may take appropriate decision and communicate to them. 5. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. There shall be however no directions as to costs. I direct that Annexures 1 and 2 shall form part of the order. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 11.03.2010 sanjeev