C.W.P No. 13574 of 2006 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 13574 of 2006 Date of decision : May 15, 2009. Dharm Pal, ... Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana and others, ... Respondents. *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. R.S.Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for respondents No.1 to 4. *** 1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J The petitioner was appointed as a Fitter Coolie on 6.8.1974. By order dated 20.2.1976, he was promoted as Fitter Grade II on work charge basis and thereafter his services were regularized w.e.f 15.11.1983. By order dated 13.2.1989, the petitioner along with 22 other Fitters was reverted to the post of Fitter Coolie on the ground that these persons had been wrongly promoted. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all other persons, who were sought to be reverted along with the petitioner including some persons junior to him, obtained stay order and were consequently allowed to C.W.P No. 13574 of 2006 ::2:: continue. The petitioner challenged this action and ultimately SLP No.2429 of 1990 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 19.3.1990 with the following observations :- “ The main grievance of the petitioner is that there are some junior who are not reverted while he being the senior is asked to revert back. If these are the facts, it is open to the petitioner to invite the attention of the Department and we trust that the Department will do justice to him. Special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.” The petitioner moved a representation, Annexure P-4, which was decided by order dated 11.4.1990, wherein it was pointed out that all persons who were junior to the petitioner were continuing on the basis of stay orders granted in their favour. The petitioner again challenged this action. The matter was eventually carried up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP No.18126 of 1991, which was disposed of by order dated 12.12.1991 in the following terms :- “By this Court's order dated 19th March, 1990 in SLP (C) No.2429 of 1990 it was directed that it would be open to the petitioner to invite the attention of the Department to the fact that some of his juniors are still not reverted. It was hoped that the Department would do the needful. Subsequently, the petitioner wrote a letter pointing out that six of his juniors named therein were still not reverted. The Department informed him that some of them who have secured stay orders from the High Court C.W.P No. 13574 of 2006 ::3:: continue as they cannot be reverted whereas the rest have been reverted. There upon the petitioner filed a third writ petition No.10866 of 1990 wherein counsel for the State Government informed the Court that the seniority of the concerned parties had been determined and no person junior to the petitioner, in whose favour there is no order of any Court, was retained in the promotional post, meaning thereby that they were duly reverted. On this submission the petition was disposed of by the High Court. Surely the petitioner cannot expect the Department to revert those in whose favour stay orders against reversion have been passed by the competent Court. The most that he can expect is that the Department would move the competent Court which has granted the stay for vacating the stay, in view of this Court's order dated 19th March, 1990. We think nothing more can be done and the High Court was, therefore, right in dismissing the petition in limine. The Special Petition is disposed of accordingly.” It is not disputed that all other persons mentioned above retired during the pendency of stay orders and consequently, the writ petitions filed by them were dismissed as infructuous. It is also not disputed that now the petitioner has been promoted by order dated 19.5.2006 and is working on the promoted post. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the persons who were junior to the petitioner ultimately did retire on the promoted post, C.W.P No. 13574 of 2006 ::4:: he should also be given the same benefit. In my opinion, the two orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly mitilate against this view. The fact is that the respondents did make an effort to treat all similarly situated persons similarly but because of interim orders of the Court, their action could not fructify in the cases of other persons. The second contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12.12.1991, the respondents should have moved applications for vacation of stay. It is not disputed that after the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the petitioner filed CWP No.14298 of 1992. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 23.9.1993 with the following observations :- “...... The only ground now pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that since persons junior to the petitioner happen to man promotional posts, may be wrongly under orders of the Court as their petitions are still pending, the petitioner has a legal right to work on the post of Fitter Grade-II. There is no merit in this contention. The persons, who were promoted against the sanctioned posts, were allowed to work on the promotional posts and all others who were promoted to Fitter Grade-II posts, stand reverted. Since the petitioner was not working against sanctioned post, his reversion was thus legal and justified. He cannot make a claim on un-sanctioned post on the ground that persons junior to C.W.P No. 13574 of 2006 ::5:: him are illegally occupying such posts. The petitioner has no legal right which can be informed now in this writ petition. As already observed above in the order of the Supreme Court, the State was expected to move for vacation of orders obtained by others and it appears that the State has not taken any step. Three of such writ petitions stand admitted (bearing Nos.9473 and 10005 of 1992) and it is stated that they were ordered to be listen within six months. That time had already elapsed and these cases have not so far been listed for hearing. By dismissing the present writ petitions, we direct the office to fix the aforesaid writ petitions for final hearing promptly.” In this view of the matter, both contentions which are now being sought to be raised have been dealt with in various rounds of litigation which have taken place inter-parties. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed with, however, no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 15, 2009. JUDGE `kk'