CWP No.2827 of 1992 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2827 of 1992 Date of decision: 01.07.2010 Lakhbir Singh .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab through Secretary Education, Punjab and others. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. . . . AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed claiming that the petitioner joined as Male Social Worker in the respondent No.2-Department on 05.01.1959 in the pay sclae of Rs.60-4-100. As per the petition, in the respondent No.2-Department there were posts of Tehsil Welfare Officers also in the same scale. It was further pleaded that the promotion post for both these categories of the employees was that of District Welfare Officer. And, in this regard Rule 8 (i) (G) of the Punjab Welfare Department Class- III Service Rules 1962 provided as follows:- 8 (1) (G) In the case of a District Welfare Officer for Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes:- (i) by promotion from among Tehsil Welfare Officers for Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes and Male Social Workers. It is further averred that even the Educational CWP No.2827 of 1992 ::2:: Qualifications for both the posts was that of matric and that rather Social Workers had to have extra qualifications. The petitioner further goes on to state that the petitioner was designated as Tehsil Welfare Officer vide order dated 17.08.1970. The grouse of the petitioner primarily is that the respondents No.3, 4 and 5 who had joined as Tehsil Welfare Officers much after the petitioner joined as a Social Worker Male was wrongly shown as senior to him in the Seniority List dated 22.05.1974. The petitioner constantly represented and also filed a Civil Suit claiming his seniority. However, vide order dated 02.08.1984, the petitioner withdrew the suit by making the following statement:- “I have compromised with the department and I do not want to proceed my suit further. I may be allowed to withdraw the suit.” Even after the petitioner withdrew his suit, he kept representing to the respondents but ultimately since his representation did not bear fruit the instant writ petition was filed. It has also to be noticed that subsequently the petitioner was also promotted as District Welfare Officer like the Private Respondents and has retired as such. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the reason given for showing the private respondents senior to the petitioner was that they were originally appointed as Tehsil Welfare Officer and thus, were senior to the petitioner as Tehsil Welfare Officer. As per learned counsel in view of the fact that both the posts are equivalent and, in view of the fact that admittedly, the petitioner had joined service (as Social Worker Male) earlier than the private respondents had joined as Tehsil Welare Officer; when the petitioner was posted as Tehsil Welfare officer, he should have been shown senior to the respondents. In my opinion, even if this argument of the learned counsel is accepted the petitioner has disentitled himself from any relief under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court in CWP No.2827 of 1992 ::3:: view of the fact that this writ petition was filed in 1992 whereas the initial cause of action accrued to the petitioner in 1974. Additionally, the abandonment of the Civil Suit by the petitioner wherein also he sought the same relief would also be a factor in denying any relief to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) July 01, 2010 JUDGE sukhpreet