IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.4181 of 2011 Date of decision : 9.3.2011 Sanjay Kumar Mishr ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner prays that order Annexure P-4 be set aside. The cause of grievance of the petitioner is that his designation was not changed in accordance with the request that he had made. Reliance has been placed on the circular Annexure P-2 to plead that the change of designation was permissible. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he made a request in the year 2007 which has been declined now by virtue of impugned order Annexure P-4. Upon perusal of the material on record, this court finds that a decision had been taken on 17.6.2008 by which it was decided that no change of designation of category-D of Regular Mechanical Establishment Staff will be made henceforth. The grievance which C.W.P.No.4181 of 2011 -2- has been highlighted is that since his request had been pending since 2007, and decision Annexure P-5 to discontinue with the process of change of designation of category-D employees was taken in the year 2008, the same could not be applied to him. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant writ petition is misconceived, as it does not show as to whether the request of the petitioner was pending since 2007, as has been sought to be projected before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner so as to take the benefit of the prospective effect of the decision taken in 2008. The impugned order does not make any reference with regard to the request made by the petitioner, rather it merely mentions that an application regarding change of designation was made and the reference pertains to 3.12.2010. Even if the prayer of the petitioner is accepted that the matter was pending since 2007, yet it is not understandable as to why he kept quiet for all these years and did not press for the decision of the application that he had made for change of designation. Looking from any angle the writ petition is without any merit and is dismissed. 9.3.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss