CWP No.4091 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4091 of 1987 Decided on : 16.03.2009 Kiran Prabha ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for the respondents. AJAY TEWARI J. On 04th November, 2008 following order was passed:- “Mr. R. P. Bali representing the petitioner has expired. Therefore alternative arrangement is required to be made by the petitioner. Petitioner is working in the office of Chief Administrator, HUDA. Direction is hereby given to the respondent No.2 through the counsel appearing, that a notice be served upon the petitioner that she should make alternative arrangement so that the present petition can be disposed off. Copy of this order, under the signatures of Court Secretary be handed over to Ms. Vandana Malhotra. The CWP No.4091 of 1987 -2- Chief Administrator, HUDA shall comply with the orders. Compliance report to this effect be placed on record on 26th November, 2008. Case be listed as per roster.” Thereafter, on 02nd December, 2008 following order was passed:- “Ms. Vandana Malhotra state that Kiran Prabha petitioner has been informed regarding pendency of the writ petition. Mr. Vikas Bali son of Mr. R. P. Bali is appearing for the petitioner. Since the writ petition pertains to the year 1987, in the interest of justice, the matter is adjourned to 10.12.2008.” Even today none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. In the circumstances, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed in default of non-appearance. Even on merits I find no case in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the year 1973 in the office of Urban Estates. With the coming into force of HUDA Act, the office of the petitioner became defunct and at that time all the employees were asked for option as to whether they would like to serve the Government (in which case they loose their seniority) or they would like to serve the newly created HUDA. Admittedly in the petitioner's case, an option was accepted for being absorbed in Government service. On the strength of that option, she was appointed in the office of Land Acquisition Collector, Faridabad. The petitioner then represented for withdrawal of her option and for permitting her to serve in HUDA. This representation was CWP No.4091 of 1987 -3- also allowed and she was allowed to join back. However, during this time other persons have been appointed and thus they became senior. By this petition the petitioner claiming her original seniority in HUDA. In my opinion, having admittedly opted for Government service and having thereafter changed her option, the petitioner can not be relegated to the same position as if she had never made the option. Consequently, even on merits this writ petition is dismissed. March 16, 2009 ( AJAY TEWARI ) ashish JUDGE