IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13529 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 02, 2010 Chander Mohan .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Sarabjeet Singh Khaira, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as per judgment and decree dated 1.12.1995 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Sub Judge, IIIrd Class, Jalandhar and not to consider judgment and decree dated 31.5.2004 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar. 2. Contention of learned counsel is that the petitioner’s claim for promotion in terms of earlier judgment dated 1.12.1995 has not been considered. 3. It transpires that certain departmental action was taken against the petitioner which came to be impugned by the petitioner in Civil Suit CWP No.13529 of 2010 [2] No.17 of 1995 titled `Chander Mohan vs. State of Punjab’. The suit was decreed in part. Respondent-employer was given the liberty to review the order, however, after following the principles of natural justice and as per rules. 4. Consequent upon passing of decree dated 01.12.1995, it seems that the respondent-employer-department took action against the petitioner. The action taken by the respondent came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of filing Civil Suit No. 41 of 2001. The Civil Court having competent jurisdiction while dealing with issue no. 1, in judgment dated 31.05.2004, has found that the petitioner-plaintiff had been given full opportunity and the punishing authority had passed orders as per Rules. Accordingly, the orders passed by the respondent-authorities have been upheld. 5. By way of this writ petition, contention of the learned counsel to the effect that the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 41 of 2001 dated 31.05.2004 be ignored, the same having decided the issue against the petitioner, is baseless and frivolous. Once the issue has been considered by a Court having competent jurisdiction in the context of the case of the petitioner himself, the same cannot be ignored. 6. No ground for interference in writ jurisdiction is made out. 7. Petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) August 02, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?