C.W.P No. 20175 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 20175 of 2008 Date of decision : January 30, 2009 Bijender Singh ...... 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 petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for respondents No.1 to 5. *** 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 Written statement on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5, filed today in Court, is taken on record. The petitioner has claimed that his juniors having been deputed to B-I course, he also should been so deputed. Reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 22.10.2008 passed in CWP No.19965 of 2006, Balraj Singh and others vs State of Haryana and others. The Division Bench, after considering the entire law on the subject, has held as follows :- C.W.P No. 20175 of 2008 ::2:: “ 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 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 C.W.P No. 20175 of 2008 ::3:: 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 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.” Consequently, this writ petition is allowed in the same terms. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 30, 2009. JUDGE `kk'