IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1003 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.1.2010 Anil Kumar -----Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. J.S. Maanipur, Advocate for the appellant. --- ORDER: 1. This order will dispose of LPA No.1003 of 2009 and LPA No.1386 of 2009 as both the appeals arise from common judgment of learned Single Judge. 2. The appellant was appointed as Peon in the Municipal Council, Tohana in the year 2003 on compassionate ground on account of death of his father. The contesting respondent Pushpa Rani was working on the post of Peon since 5.12.1991. She was also appointed on compassionate basis. On 18.10.2000, she was declared surplus and was directed to be absorbed in the Animal Husbandry Department, but factually she continued to work with the Municipal Council, Tohana. Finally on LPA No.1003 of 2009 16.12.2008, order of her absorption in Animal Husbandry Department was cancelled. However, on 30.12.2008, order dated 16.12.2008 was recalled and Pushpa Rani was directed to be absorbed in Animal Husbandry Department. She challenged order dated 30.12.2008 by submitting that the same was arbitrary and as the post was available and inspite of her having being declared surplus in the year 2000, she had continued to work in Municipal Council, Tohana. Appellant Anil Kumar filed writ petition against order dated 16.12.2008, cancelling absorption of Pushpa Rani in the Animal Husbandry Department on the ground that her absorption having been ordered in the year 2000, there was no occasion to cancel the same after 8 years, which will affect his seniority. 3. The Municipal Council contested the claim of Pushpa Rani and justified order cancelling her absorption. However, during arguments, it supported the claim of Pushpa Rani and approved the claim. 4. Learned Single Judge upheld the claim of Pushpa Rani and rejected the claim of appellant Anil Kumar. It was held that since the post was available where Pushpa Rani continued to work, there was no reason to adjust her in any other department. Anil Kumar was appointed subsequently and could not have a better claim than Pushpa Rani. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 2 LPA No.1003 of 2009 6. No doubt the post on which Pushpa Rani was working was declared surplus in the year 2000 and the said order remained in operation for about eight years during which the appellant was appointed, the fact remains that the said order was never given effect to. In such a situation, cancellation of order declaring her surplus was only a formality to give effect to factual situation. Learned Single Judge was, thus, justified in upholding the claim of Pushpa Rani. 7. No ground is made out to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 8. The appeals are dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 14, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3