CWP No. 20582 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 20582 of 2009 Date of decision: 6.1.2010 Jagram ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, is directed against the order dated 12.2.2009 (P-8) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 802-HR-2007. The petitioner has claimed the relief for fixation of his pay and seniority as per the rules on the basis that he was absorbed as Clerk vide order dated 23.7.2000. He was given the benefit of notional pay fixation w.e.f. 1.1.1987 to 23.7.2000 on the ground that he has not worked actually as Clerk w.e.f. 1.1.1987 till 23.7.2000 and his claim has been rejected. The short issue raised by the petitioner before us is that he has been absorbed as Clerk w.e.f. 1.1.1984 (P-5) as is evident from the order dated 29.5.2007 in O.A. No. 1001/HR/2005. Taking notice of the reply by the respondents, it has been stated in the order that the CWP No. 20582 of 2009 2 seniority of the petitioner as Clerk was fixed at Sr. No.8-A below Sh. Desh Raj, by giving him the benefit w.e.f. 1.1.1984. The petitioner has further been promoted as Sr. Clerk vide order dated 21.11.2003 after he successfully passed the suitability test. Accordingly, he was assigned seniority as Senior Clerk at Sr. No. 45-A. Thereafter his date of absorption as Clerk which was inadvertently shown as 1.4.1984 was also corrected vide order dated 29.8.2001 to be 1.1.1984. The Tribunal has disposed of the original application by directing the respondents to decide the legal notice by passing a speaking order. The legal notice has been decided by letter dated 8.10.2007 (P-7) holding that since the petitioner has been assigned as clerk work from 1.1.1987 to 23.7.2000 on the post of Clerk, he could not be held entitled for grant of relief of pay and allowances nor he could be assigned the seniority w.e.f. 1.1.1984. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that once the petitioner has been absorbed as Clerk w.e.f. 1.1.1984 for the purpose of fixation of pay, he may have to be given seniority with effect from the date of absorption. However, it is a different matter that the petitioner did not institute the original application by impleading those persons as party respondents who were likely to be adversely affected. Such a flaw could have been the basis for prayer made before the Tribunal to withdraw the original application. However, the Tribunal did not permit the petitioner to withdraw his original application. We feel the Tribunal should not have CWP No. 20582 of 2009 3 declined the prayer of the petitioner. Accordingly, O.A. No. 802-HR- 2007 is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to institute a fresh original application on the same cause of action by impleading all affected persons as party respondents. It is needless to mention that any observation made in this order shall not be considered as expression of opinion either on question of law or fact. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE 06.01.2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE