IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 4321-CAT of 2010 Date of Decision: March 11, 2010 Gurmukh Singh …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges order dated 17.9.2009 (P-7), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), in OA No. 816/CH/2007, dismissing the OA filed by the petitioner and others. The short question raised in the instant petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to ante date his date of regularisation. According to the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the petitioner was regularised in the year 1987 and the claim made by him is that he along with others was entitled to be regularised from 1983. The reason for delay in the regularisation of the petitioner was that retrenched staff from other Postal Division was CWP No. 4321-CAT of 2010 transferred to the Postal Division where the petitioner was working on daily wage basis. The Tribunal did not find any legal infirmity in transferring the regular staff which has been rendered surplus to the Postal Division where the petitioner was working. There is no question of granting any preference to the daily wage workers like the petitioner at the time of considering their cases for regularisation. Even otherwise the original application was filed in the year 2007 whereas regularisation was ordered long ago in the year 1987. There is inordinate delay in approaching the Tribunal. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting admission of the instant petition. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) March 11, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2