Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashok Chhibber vs Hpgcl Through Managing Director ... on 24 January, 2019
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-11472-2016
Date of Decision:24.01.2019
Ashok Chhibber ... Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited and others
... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present : Mr. R.P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate
for the respondents.
RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of order dated 8.4.2016 (Annexure P-8) whereby his claim pursuant to the order dated 17.9.2013 passed by this Court in CWP No.20489 of 2013 has been rejected by a detailed order.
A perusal of the impugned order dated 8.4.2016 shows that petitioner was appointed as T/Mate on 16.12.1980. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Fitter on 5.2.1985 and he was further promoted to the post of Fitter on 11.1.1985. His services were regularized on 6.10.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted deemed date of promotion on 9.10.1989 as Fitter at par with Shri Naresh Chander. The petitioner has already been retired from the post of Technician on 31.05.2013 and Shri Naresh Chander, who was immediate senior to him is still working as Technician.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to deemed date of regularization w.e.f. 20.06.1986 when the other 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 11-02-2019 03:10:20 ::: CWP-11472-2016 -2- similarly situated employees have been granted the said benefit.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that case of the petitioner that he be given deemed date of regularization w.e.f. 20.06.1986 when the other similarly situated employees have been granted the said benefit is liable to be rejected on the ground that regularization orders passed in the cases of Shri Sham Lal, Shri Narottam Dutt and Shri Ramesh Chand way back in the year 1986 and 1989 whereas the petitioner has sought for the said relief in the year 2013 almost after 25 years.
In view of the above facts and circumstances as also the fact that the petitioner has claimed the deemed date of regularization w.e.f. 20.06.1986 almost after 25 years, the present petition is dismissed on account of delay and laches.
(RITU BAHRI)
24.01.2019 JUDGE
rajeev
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 11-02-2019 03:10:21 :::