CWP No.999 of 1989 :1: In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 16.03.2009 Vijay Kumar Rahi and others ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, DAG, Punjab. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 12.01.1989, Annexure P-2, seniority list dated 27.05.1988, Annexures P-31 & P-32 as also promotion order of respondent No.4 issued vide order dated 02.10.1988, Annexure P-34, with a further direction in the nature of mandamus to assign the seniority to the petitioners over and above respondent Nos. 4 to 7. The petitioners and private respondents were serving as Clerks. The petitioners were appointed on 11.10.1965, 30.05.1964, 21.07.1964 and 11.10.1965, respectively, as Clerks in the cadre of Panchayat Department. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 were also appointed on 09.05.1956, 28.01.1959, 16.11.1961 and 06.04.1964, respectively, CWP No.999 of 1989 :2: in the Department of Rural Development under the Rural Development cadre in the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officers. Both these cadres were, later on, merged in terms of the letter dated 11.03.1969 (Annexure P-5). Consequent, upon the merger, a joint tentative seniority list was issued vide order Annexure P-8, notifying the joint seniority list of the Head Clerks, Steno-typists and Clerks working in the office of the Director of Panchayats and in the office of the Assistant Director of Panchayats as it stood on 23.07.1970. In this seniority list, respondent Nos. 4 to 7 were shown senior to the petitioners, at serial Nos.13, 14, 17 and 18 respectively, whereas petitioners were shown at serial Nos.23, 19, 21 and 22, respectively. The petitioners claimed to have filed representations against the aforesaid order. A copy of the representation is Annexure P-9. The aforesaid seniority list was followed by another tentative seniority list, Annexure P-13 wherein the private respondents continued to be shown senior to the petitioners. Yet another seniority list, Annexure P-15, was issued showing the private respondents senior to the petitioners. The petitioners made various representations against these seniority lists. The short grievance of the petitioners is that the private respondents and the petitioners belong to different cadres of service and, thus, on account of merger they cannot be shown as senior to them. The stand of the State-respondents is that private CWP No.999 of 1989 :3: respondents were appointed earlier than the petitioners in the same category and rank and on merger of the two wings they were ranked senior to the petitioners. The dates of appointment of the private respondents and the petitioners are indicated in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the writ petition itself. Perusal thereof clearly establish that the private respondents were appointed much earlier than the petitioners. The order of merger has not been challenged in the present writ petition. Otherwise also, the cadre to which the respondents belong has been merged not at the request of the respondents but by the act of the employer. The private respondents cannot be deprived of their seniority when the State-respondent has decided to merge the above said two cadres. There is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. In view of the above, present petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 16.03.2009. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO