CWP No.2839 of 1997 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2839 of 1997 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.11.2011 Dharam Vir ....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER *** Present : Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana, for the respondent(s)-State. *** MAHESH GROVER, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize his services with effect from the date respondent No.4, who according to the petitioner, is junior to him, was regularized as Ticket Verifier. The petitioner joined as a Ticket Verifier in the office of respondent No.3 w.e.f. 17.02.1987 on daily wage basis in the pay-scale of Rs.950-1500. Since the pay-scale of regular employees were higher, therefore, the petitioner filed the writ petition which was allowed and the petitioner was granted the pay-scale of the regular employees vide order dated 07.07.1988. His services were terminated on 30.07.1988. He then filed another petition i.e. CWP No.7549 of 1988, challenging the retrenchment and by pleading that his services deserve to be regularized and the same was disposed of in terms of Piara Singh's Case in CWP CWP No.2839 of 1997 (O&M) 2 No.72 of 1988. Thereafter, the petitioner represented that he be employed and regularized and assurance was given to him that when the post becomes available he would be inducted in the service again. When the post became available, the respondents inducted one Balram Sharma instead of the petitioner. Thereafter he filed CWP No.10663 of 1995 and during the pendency of the said petition, the petitioner was granted employment. Now he claims that his service ought to have been regularized with effect from the date when service of respondent No.4 was regularized i.e. in the year 1988. His contention is that since the said respondent No.4 was junior to him and therefore, he deserves parity of treatment. The respondents have denied the claim and have contended that the petitioner cannot claim any comparison with respondent No.4 as he was appointed on regular basis in the year 1988 independently and the petitioner himself was appointed in the year 1996. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot claim any parity with the case of respondent No.4. Concededly, the services of the petitioner were retrenched in the year 1988 so thereafter the respondents had appointed respondent No.4 on regular basis. The petitioner never challenged the induction of respondent No.4 at that point of time to contend that in case respondent No.4 was junior to him, he should be retrenched instead of the petitioner. Rather he had filed a petition seeking regularization of services and in all probability on the strength of misrepresentation that he was actually entitled to be regularized. His case was disposed of in terms of Piara Singh's Case but since he was out of service therefore, there was no question of any benefit of regularization of service. After some struggle and after the petitioner was CWP No.2839 of 1997 (O&M) 3 made to file a writ petition, the respondents indeed appointed him on regular basis w.e.f. January 1996 when the post was actually available. The services of the petitioner, therefore, commenced from 1996 when he was appointed on regular basis and for the aforesaid reasons which have been given in the foregoing paragraphs, the petitioner obviously cannot claim any parity with the case of respondent No.4 whom he erroneously describes as his junior. The petition is, thus, held to be without any merit and is dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER ) November 18, 2011 JUDGE mamta