CWP No.2997 of 2008. 06.01.2009 Present: Petitioner in person. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. CMP No.4227 of 2008. Allowed. CWP No.2997 of 2008. The petitioner and respondent No.2 were colleagues in the same department. The petitioner retired in the year 2000 whereas according to him, respondent No.2 retired in the year 2006, however was reappointed. Now some extra charge has been given to respondent No.2 vide impugned order dated 29th March, 2008, which has been challenged by the petitioner who claims that this petition be considered to be Public Interest Litigation but has indicated in para 3 of the petition that the petitioner is feeling aggrieved by the order of appointment of respondent No.2. Learned Advocate General submitted that in service matters Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable. The petitioner, who happens to be a Member of the Bar, could not meet this preliminary objection but had only submitted that the petitioner and public at large are aggrieved by the impugned order. It has also come in light that the petitioner in person and respondent No.2 were colleagues before their respective retirement in the Department in question. Since it has been admitted by the petitioner that -2- he is aggrieved by the impugned order, it cannot be said that he has approached this Court in public interest. We further find that in light of above the petition is not maintainable as Public Interest Litigation. Accordingly, it is dismissed, so also the pending application. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. January 06, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (rc)