IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.6667 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision : August 26, 2011. Rajesh Kumar Soni .....Petitioner versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Sukhbir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner joined the respondent-Department as a Daily Wager Pump Operator w.e.f. 1.2.1993. His name was initially entered at Sr.No.493-A in the seniority list of Daily Wager Pump Operators and based thereupon, his services were regularized vide order dated 6.4.2004. The respondents thereafter served the petitioner with a show cause notice to de- regularize his services on the plea that his name in the seniority list ought to have been at Sr.No.1178 and as per that he was not entitled for regularization of his services as services of the Pump Operators upto Sr.No.508 were regularized. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice which did not find favour with the respondents who passed an CWP No.6667 of 2009 (O&M) order de-regularizing the petitioner's service, giving rise to these proceedings. The respondents have during the pendency of this writ petition passed another order dated 24.5.2011 whereby services of the petitioner have again been regularized and he has joined as a regular Pump Operator. The only question which survives now pertains to the petitioner's claim for regularization of his services as per the original seniority No.493-A. The question as to when did the petitioner join as a daily wager, is purely a question of fact and it can be effectively determined by the competent authority after scrutinizing the records. It is well settled that principles of `review' or akin thereto are not attracted to administrative decisions. A mistake or error of fact can always be rectified by an administrative authority. If the petitioner was erroneously placed at Sr.No.493-A in the seniority list, no undue advantage can be taken by him over and above his seniors who were still awaiting for regularization of their services. Similarly, if the petitioner has been brought down to Sr.No.1178 in the seniority list over-looking his actual and total length of service as a daily wager, he cannot be put to any disadvantage due to the factual mistake of the authorities. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Superintending Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation Department, Circle Ludhiana, to re-determine the petitioner's claim for his placement in the seniority list of daily wagers after giving him an opportunity of hearing and after ascertaining the correct facts from the record with regard to the CWP No.6667 of 2009 (O&M) date of initial engagement of the petitioner. A speaking order in this respect shall be passed within a period of six months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order and uninfluenced of the previous decisions taken in the matter from time to time which can simply be termed as adhoc and stop gap orders. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. August 26, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE