CWP No.930 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.930 of 2002 DATE OF DECISION: February 4, 2010 PIARA LAL ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. PRESENT: MR. VIVEK SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MS. SUDEEPTI SHARMA, DAG, PUNJAB. MR. P.L. VERMA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 9. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner has prayed for quashing the seniority list dated 7.1.2002, issued by respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner has been shown junior to respondents No.3 to 9. It is the case of the petitioner that although he was senior to respondents No.3 to 9, but without affording any opportunity of hearing to him, he has been shown junior to the said respondents in the aforementioned seniority list. Counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that seniority list of the Assistants in Public Works Department is dated 31.12.2001, and not 7.1.2002, as has been mentioned by the petitioner. Learned State counsel has further placed on record a copy of the judgement in CWP No.1222 of 2003, Harminder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, decided by a Division Bench vide order dated 18.9.2003, wherein the seniority list dated 21.1.2001, has been set aside. CWP No.930 of 2002 -2- In view of the fact that the seniority list already stands quashed in Harminder Singh's case (supra), therefore, this writ petition has been rendered infructous and is dismissed as such. In view of the quashing of the seniority list in Harminder Singh's case (supra), the petitioner shall be assigned his seniority number and will also be given all consequential benefits, in case he comes over and above respondents No.3 to 9. February 4, 2010 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) Gulati JUDGE