CWP No. 18880 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18880 of 2009 Date of Decision : 9.12.2009 Partibha Sharma .......... Petitioner Versus The Haryana State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents to regularize her services w.e.f. 4.10.1991, the date when she was initially appointed as Clerk on ad hoc basis instead of 1.2.1996. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on ad hoc basis for a period of 89 days on 4.10.1991. The services of the petitioner were extended from time to time by specific orders for 89 days. However, in order to avoid termination she filed a civil suit, which was decreed on 16.10.1998 and a decree of permanent injunction was passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents from terminating her services. The appeal filed by the respondents failed. The respondents vide order dated 18.10.2004 regularized the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.2.1996. In order to benefit the petitioner the respondents fixed her CWP No. 18880 of 2009 2 salary by allowing her benefit of ad hoc service w.e.f. 4.10.1991. The petitioner sought benefit of first A.C.P. The request was declined as the services of the petitioner were regularized only w.e.f.1.2.1996. This prompted the petitioner to move this Court to seek the regularization with retrospective effect i.e. from the date of initial appointment. The only ground on which the relief is sought is that this benefit has been given to some other employees, whereas she has been declined this benefit. The petitioner has claimed that the action of respondents is discriminatory, thus violates Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The claim deserves to be rejected for more than one grounds firstly the petitioner did not take any step to challenge the order of regularization vide which her services were regularized w.e.f. 1.2.1996, though passed on 18.10.2004. The writ petition is thus highly belated. Secondly there are no instructions or rules which entitle the petitioner to regularization of her services from the date of initial appointment. It is well settled law that if any benefit is given wrongly to some persons, to which they were not entitled, other persons cannot claim such benefit by invoking Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. No merit. Dismissed. 9.12.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE