CWP No. 7931 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7931 of 2009 Date of Decision: May 25, 2009 Murari Lal ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. P.K.Sachdev, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. The petitioner was inducted as an apprentice weldor for one year in the Haryana Roadways, Bhiwani on 14.10.1993. On the completion of that one year he was disengaged. He challenged that action, claiming that he had a right to be appointed after having completed his apprenticeship successfully. He has concededly lost up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Now after 15 years the claim in the present writ petition is that since the petitioner worked during the strike period he was entitled to be appointed since other persons who had taken appointment during that period have been adjusted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that at various stages his case was recommended yet by an order Annexure P-8 his CWP No. 7931 of 2009 2 case has been rejected. A perusal of rejection order reveals that the reason that has weighed with the respondents is that the petitioner was never employed but had been receiving training as an apprentice. Learned counsel has argued that in fact during the strike period he worked as a helper and , therefore, he is entitled to be adjusted in view of the undertaking given to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.316 and 317 of 2004 and letter Annexure P-10. A perusal of the letter Annexure P-10 shows that the Transport Commissioner had mentioned that all persons who had worked on daily wage basis during the strike would be given preference in adjustment. In my opinion in Annexure P-8 the correct view has been taken viz. that the petitioner being apprentice could not be construed to be the daily wager so as to entitle him to get the benefit of the undertaking before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the letter Annexure P-10. Consequently this writ petition is dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 25 , 2009 sunita