IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.15856 of 2010 Date of decision : 10.1.2011 Chhaju Ram ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the respondents. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner was an employee of Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation, which is a state owned corporation, since wound up. The surplus employees out of which the petitioner was one of them were ordered to be absorbed in the Revenue Department by the decision taken by the respondent-State vide circular dated 5.1.1990. One of the conditions in such absorption was that such employees shall not be entitled to any seniority which shall be determined from the date of their joining in the revenue department but they were entitled to other benefits. The petitioner thus claims that the service rendered by him in the Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation be counted for the C.W.P.No.15856 of 2010 -2- purpose of granting him monetary benefits such as grant of ACP as also fixation of pension and other retiral benefits. The claim has been declined by the respondent-State. In this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays indulgence of this court to issue an appropriate writ to direct the respondent to count the period of service rendered by the petitioner in the Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation towards the grant of pecuniary benefits such as ACP, fixation of pension and other retiral benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset has drawn attention of this Court to the judgment rendered in CWP No.19638 of 2008, decided on 14.1.2010 in which numerous employees who were similarly situated as the petitioner had been granted the prayer which the petitioner makes in the instant writ petition. A copy of the decision of this court has been attached as Annexure P7. In the reply filed in response to the notice of motion issued by this Court the factum of the benefits having been granted to similarly situated persons by virtue of the decision referred to above has not been denied. Rather, it has been stated that the SLP has been advised to be filed in such like cases. There is thus no dispute that the matter is covered by the decision of this Court in Exs.P-6 and P-7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of in the same terms. 10.1.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss