Punjab-Haryana High Court
Murari Lal vs State Of Haryana & Others on 22 March, 2010
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Alok Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
L.P.A. No.1159 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 22.3.2010
Murari Lal.
-----Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana & others.
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH
Present:- Mr. P.K. Sachdev, Advocate
for the appellant.
-----
ORDER:
1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition of the appellant seeking direction for appointment to the post of Welder.
2. Case of the appellant is that he worked as Apprentice for one year in the year 2003 and during that period, there was strike by the employees. He made representation for appointment on the ground that having worked during strike period, he was entitled to be preferred in employment as per order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 16.1.2004 in C.A. No.316 and 317 of 2004 State of Haryana and others v. Jasbir Singh and others. The said application was dismissed on 30.7.2004 vide Annexure P-5. Against that order, writ petition was field by the appellant in the year 2009.
LPA No.1159 of 2009 2
3. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that cause of action arose in favour of the appellant in the year 1994 and the writ petition was filed 15 years thereafter. It was further held that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not apply to the appellant who was only an apprentice and was never employed as such.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record, particularly the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. It is clear from the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that affidavit referred to therein related to persons who were recruited as employees and who were in the waiting list for being considered against vacancies and the appellant was not covered thereby. Moreover, the appellant approached the Court for the first time after 15 years of the accrual of cause of action.
6. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
7. The appeal is dismissed.
( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )
JUDGE
March 22, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH )
ashwani JUDGE