CWP No.1948 of 1989 : 1 : In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 16.03.2009 Dhruv Dev Singh and another ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.GS Jaswal,Advocate. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, DAG, Punjab. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Petitioner No.1 was engaged as Clerk on ad hoc basis in Drainage Circle, Amritsar, with effect from 05.09.1972, whereas petitioner No.2 was engaged on 10.06.1974 in the same circle as time Clerk on work charge basis. It seems that the petitioners were later retrenched but again adjusted vide office order dated 05.11.1981 (Annexure P-1). Both the petitioners were adjusted in Canal Lining Circle, Ludhiana, as work charge clerks against the vacant posts in the circle. The services of both these petitioners were regularised vide order dated 15.09.1984 (Annexure P-2). Petitioner No.1 was reglarised with effect from 18.11.1983 whereas petitioner No.2 was CWP No.1948 of 1989 : 2 : regularised with effect from 18.11.1981. Representations were made by the petitioners for giving the benefit of the ad hoc service. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made a statement that during the pendency of this writ petition, vide order dated 4.8.1994 (Annexure P-8) the date of appointment of petitioner No.1 Dhruv Dev Singh was shifted from 18.11.1983 to 05.09.1972 and he was granted all benefits. The grievance of petitioner No.2 is that his representation for similar benefits of service with effect from his initial date of appointment has not been granted to him. No reply has been filed by the respondents. It is admitted position on record that both the petitioners were initially engaged on ad hoc basis, but later adjusted against vacant posts and regularised vide the same order. Once the respondents have granted service benefit to petitioner No.1 from the date of his initial appointment, there is no reason to deny the similar treatment to petitioner No.2 when he is similarly situated to petitioner No.1. The inaction of the respondents has caused a great prejudice to respondent No.2. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant petitioner No.2 the benefit of initial date of appointment i.e. with effect from 10.06.1974 with all CWP No.1948 of 1989 : 3 : consequential benefits on the same analogy as has been granted to petitioner No.1, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Court. No costs. 16.03.2009. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO