IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.81 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.7.2009 Sh.Daljit Singh Padda -----Appellant Vs. The State of Punjab and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. The appellant is aggrieved by order of learned Single Judge dated 9.8.2006, dismissing his writ petition, which sought a direction for giving him seniority with effect from the date of his joining i.e. 5.4.1958 and not from 14.3.1961, which is the date on which he joined the Head Office. 2. The appellant was appointed to the post of Clerk after selection by the Subordinate Services Selection Board. He joined the office of District Medical Officer, Kapurthala on 5.4.1958. After more than two years, he made an application that he may be appointed to the Head Office and if he is so appointed, he will LPA No.81 of 2008 (O&M) forego benefit of his service in the office of District Medical Officer. Accordingly, his request was accepted and he was appointed in the Head Office but a condition was specifically imposed that he will be treated as a new entrant for fixation of seniority in the cadre of clerks in the Head Office and no benefit of seniority will be given to him for his service in subordinate office. In the seniority list prepared in the year 1966, his date of joining was treated to be 14.3.1961. 3. The appellant, contrary to his undertaking, made a representation that his date of appointment for purposes of seniority should be treated to be the date of joining the subordinate office. He also filed a suit, which was dismissed in the year 1985. During pendency of appeal against dismissal of suit, the appellant represented again on the ground that some other persons had been given benefit of service rendered in subordinate office, on which, order dated 17.7.1986 was passed, accepting his claim. However, CWP No.312 of 1988 was filed by affected parties, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.9.1989, with a direction to re- determine the seniority after giving hearing to the affected parties. After hearing the affected parties, a fresh order dated 14.7.1990 was passed, withdrawing the benefit of seniority given to the appellant vide order dated 17.7.1986. The said order is Annexure 2 LPA No.81 of 2008 (O&M) P.11 on record. It was held that there was no justification for counting service of the appellant from 5.4.1958 in view of specific condition imposed and his appointment in the Head Office only on his own request. The claim of parity with other employees, namely, Jati Ram, Naurata Ram and Jagdish Rai was not made out, as their case was distinguishable, they having originally been appointed to the Head Office and then having been transferred to the subordinate Office and then again being re-transferred to the Head Office. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.7.1990, the appellant filed CWP No.2301 of 1992, which was disposed of, with a direction to consider the representation of the appellant and thereafter, impugned order dated 18.9.1991, Annexure P.15 was passed, which was challenged in the writ petition. 4. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no discrimination in view of the appellant having been given posting on specific condition on his own request and he could not challenge the said condition. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that other employees, whose names have figured above, were similarly placed. 3 LPA No.81 of 2008 (O&M) 7. We find that the appellant having been appointed to the Head Office on a specific condition, could not question the said condition nor his case was at par with other employees, as held in order dated 14.7.1990, Annexure P-11. 8. No interference is called for with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge July 08, 2009 (Daya Chaudhary) ‘gs’ Judge 4