Punjab-Haryana High Court
Daljit Singh Bhullar vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 16 March, 2017
Author: Jaishree Thakur
Bench: Jaishree Thakur
CWP No. 602 of 2003 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 602 of 2003 (O&M)
Date of decision: 16.3.2017
Daljit Singh Bhullar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Rupam Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate,
for respondent No.3.
Mr. Arun Walia, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Chandan Gaddi, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.
JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner by way of the instant writ petition prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction calling upon the respondents to rectify the error in his service record and grant him the benefit of his earlier services from 29.12.1976 to 28.4.1983 rendered with the Fish Farmers Development Agency, Gurdaspur. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner was working as an Overseer from 29.12.1976 under a Punjab Government Undertaking, which is an instrumentality of the State. However, after putting 6-1/2 years service, his services were retrenched. Thereafter, he came to be appointed with respondent No.3 and his services 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2017 23:12:09 ::: CWP No. 602 of 2003 2 were regularized with effect from 1.4.1985. A tentative seniority list came to be prepared in which the seniority of the petitioner was reflected at serial No. 22. The petitioner was aggrieved against the tentative seniority list prepared and against that submitted a representation dated 24.8.2000, in which he claimed continuity of his earlier services rendered in Fish Farmers Development Agency.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective respondents contend that there is nothing on record to show that the previous services of the petitioner should have been taken into account and they are unaware whether the said Agency was the instrumentality of the State or not. In any case, the tentative seniority list that was circulated has since attained finality and in case the petitioner has grievance, he should have amended the writ petition so as to challenge the final seniority list that had been prepared.
3. There is no one appearing on behalf of the petitioner to assist this Court. In view of the fact that there is nothing on record to substantiate the plea of the petitioner that he had rendered services in Fish Farmers Development Agency and also in view of the fact that the challenge is only to the tentative seniority list which has attained finality, this Court is not inclined to interfere.
4. The writ petition is dismissed.
16.3.2017 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
prem JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2017 23:12:10 :::