Vijay Singh And ANR v. Haryana State And ORS
!"#$!%&'&"()*+&,-.---
) /0 1 2
+!'!(
!"# $ !
% 33333
.1 0 $ &''( $ )
)
* + $ )
,-&&&''. /
/&,/+,++
$ $ 1 2
!
3 - 4 5)
$ ) $
6 " 7 ) 5 6 ) $ ) +.5 *
VANDANA 2022.05.19 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
5
$ )
) ( In any case, it appears that even on merits, claim of the petitioners is not admissible in view of the stand taken in Paras-3 and 5 of the reply filed by respondents No.1 and 2.
6.
)
5 5 7.
Perusal of the gradation list contained at Annexure P-5 would reveal that name of petitioner No.1 is at Sr. No.50 and that of petitioner No.2 at Sr. No.36. Concededly, both of them were promoted as Assistant Carpenter. However, respondents No.3 and 4 on the other hand were initially appointed as Helper Carpenter on daily wages, but later on they were appointed as Carpenter some time in July, 1985.
8.
Feeling aggrieved qua their non-regularization, respondents No.3 and 4 preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing CWP-6838-1987 which was allowed along with another writ petition bearing CWP-4743-1986 vide order dated 17.02.1988. Respondents were directed by High Court to regularize the services of respondents No.3 and 4 on the same very post on which they were working i.e. Carpenter.
9.
In the premise, services of respondent No.3 and 4 came to be regularized on the post of Carpenter owing to the directions of the Court. 10.
In this backdrop, the petitioners also served a notice on the department to consider them for promotion on the post of Carpenter which did not yield any result leading to filing of civil suit in Court of Additional Senior Sub Judge, Jind at the relevant time. The said civil suit was dismissed on 04.06.1992. In view thereof, even otherwise claim of the petitioners cannot be entertained by way of instant writ petition.
&& )
!)
*+&,-.--- " : ;:9 5 ;:9 VANDANA 2022.05.19 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document