IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 9753 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 4, 2010 Vinod Kumar …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Munish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. O.S. Batalvi, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 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 order dated 19.1.2009 (P-13) in OA No. 47-PB-2009, and order dated 18.3.2009 (P-15), in Review Application No. 18 of 2009, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’). The matter pertains to selection and appointment to the post of Postman, which the petitioner has refused to avail when he was selected as such w.e.f. 8.5.1996. In fact, the petitioner did not join. It is appropriate to mention that the petitioner has been working as Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster w.e.f. 22.1.1976 at Village and Post Office E.D. Naugajja, Jalandhar. He approached the Tribunal with a prayer for granting him relief C.W.P. No. 9753 of 2009 for appointment to the post of Postman, which was offered to him by the respondents in pursuance to his selection on 8.5.1996, on which he had refused to join. The Tribunal has dismissed the OA on the ground of delay, vide order dated 19.1.2009 (P-13). Even the review application has been rejected vide order dated 18.3.2009 (P-15). When the matter came up for hearing on 23.2.2010, we have issued direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 through their counsel to seek instructions as to whether after 2005 the case of the petitioner has ever been considered for promotion to the post of Postman or not. On 25.2.2010, Mr. O.S. Batalvi, learned counsel for the respondents, could not obtain complete instructions with regard to the meeting of the DPC for appointment to the post of Postman. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned for today. Mr. O.S. Batalvi, after obtaining instructions from Mr. Kohli, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jalandhar, has stated that there is no post of Postman in Group ‘C’ available. However, the name of the petitioner is at Sr. No. 1 in the seniority list of Group ‘D’ posts and he can be considered for appointment to Group ‘D’ post. Learned counsel has further stated that if the petitioner is keen for appointment only to Group ‘C’ post then as and when vacancy or a post in that cadre becomes available, the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law. Mr. Munish Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client is not willing to avail the appointment on Group ‘D’ post. However, the petitioner shall be considered on any available vacancy/post in the cadre of Group ‘C’ as and when it becomes available. He accepts the statement made by Mr. Batalvi in that regard. 2 C.W.P. No. 9753 of 2009 While upholding the order passed by the Tribunal, we dispose of the instant petition with the observation that the respondents shall remain bound by the statement made before this Court to the extent it has been accepted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) March 4, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3