COCP No. 2124 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … COCP No. 2124 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: November 9, 2009 Bhopal Singh and others .. Petitioners Versus Mr. D.S.Bains and another ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: None for the petitioner Mr. S.S.Sahu, AAG, Punjab for the respondent .. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J(Oral) As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioners filed CWP No. 11248 of 2007 seeking quashing of order dated 17.1.2007 endorsed vide Endst. Dated 6.2.2007 (attached as Annexure P-4 with the writ petition) vide which the respondent Nos.3 to 6 in the writ petition who were juniors to the petitioners were not made seniors in an arbitrary manner. Further, challenge was made to order dated 27.2.2007 (attached as Annexure P-6 with the writ petition) giving promotion to the said respondents on the basis of the aforesid wrong seniority . Vide judgment dated 12.8.2008, this court quashed Annexure P-4 and P-6 holding that, action of the respondents in giving seniority to the private respondents in the writ petition over the petitioners and consequential promotion given to them was not justified. The grievance of the petitioners before this court is that despite the aforesaid judgment passed in their favour, the respondents have failed to implement the same. In response to the show cause notice issued by tis court, reply by way of short affidavit of Shri D.S.Bains, IAS, Principal Secretary to Government COCP No. 2124 of 2008 2 of Punjab,Department of Local Government was filed wherein it was submitted as under:- “That in compliance with the Hon'ble High Court order dated 12.8.2008, the government has already issued the orders dated 30.12.08 and 13.2.2009, Annexures R-1 and R-2 respectively thereby withdrawing the order of promotion of private respondent Nos.3 to 6 as Executive Officer Grade III dated 27.2.2007 and the order dated 6.2.2007 fixing the seniority of the private respondents No.3 to 6 as Superintendent Grade II with date of appointment as 15.12.99. The claim of the petitioners for promotion and appointment as Executive Officer Grade III has been examined. It has however, emerged on record that the petitioners are not senior most in the channel of promotion as three employees holding the substantive rank of Superintendent Grade II, which is the prescribed feeder cadre for promotion on the post of Executive Officer Grade III are senior to the petitioners and are yet to be promoted and appointed as E.O. Grade III. The inter se seniority of the petitioners vis a vis the said three senior employees is as follows:- Sr. No. Name of the employee Seniority Number 1 Varinder Singh Grewal 6 2 Tarlochan Singh 7 3 Prithipal Singh 17 4 Bhopal Singh 18 (Petitioner) 5 Smt. Rama Kalyan 19(Petitioner) 6 Lakhwinder Singh 22(Petitioner) 7 Bhupinder Singh 23(Petitioner) It is also relevant to submit here that the Government has further decided that the private respondent Nos.3 to 6 were promoted and appointed as Executive Officer Grade III against the direct recruitment quota posts and this decision was contrary to the provisions of Punjab Municipal Services (Recruitment and Condition COCP No. 2124 of 2008 3 of Service )Rules, 1975, therefore, no direct quota posts be filled upto by promotion. However, as and when the promotional quota posts of Executive Officer Grade III will become available, the petitioners would be considered for promotion and appointment as Executive Officer Grade III along with other eligible candidates, in accordance with the law and rules. As such, the compliance of the Hon'ble high Court order dated 12.8.08 has already been made, therefore, the COCP renders infructuous. In view of the fact that claim of the petitioners for promotion has been examined and that the petitioners are not senior most in the channel of promotion as three persons who are admittedly senior to the petitioners are yet to be promoted, I find no merit in this petition. Moreover, while allowing the writ petition vide judgment dated 12.8.2008, this court has not given any direction to the respondents to promote the respondents. Thus, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. Rule discharged. November 9, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE