Lachmi(Laxmi) v. Municipal Corporation, Sec-17, Chandigarh & ORS

CWP-18831-2018 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP-18831-2018 Date of Decision: 31.07.2025 LACHMI(LAXMI)

...Petitioner

Vs.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SEC-17, CHANDIGARH & ORS

...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Mandeep Kaur, Advocate (legal aid counsel) for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate with Mr. Satyendra Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Pratyush Sood, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 6 *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondent to regularize her from the date her juniors are regularized. 2.

The name of the petitioner is recorded at Sr. No.463 in the seniority list. There is another Laxmi daughter of Adimulam whose name is recorded at Sr. No.725 of the seniority list. Father's name of petitioner is also Adimulam. There is third lady named Laxmi who is daughter of Karpan whose name is recorded at Sr. No.488 of the seniority list. The respondent has regularized services of candidate at Sr. No.488 as well as 725, whereas, petitioner is ignored who is at Sr. No.463. She is senior to MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.02 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CWP-18831-2018 -2other two candidates having same name i.e. Laxmi. 3.

Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate submits that mistake in considering name of petitioner has occurred because her name at the first instance was not appearing in list which was prepared at the time of transferring her from UT Administration to MC Chandigarh. He expressed his inability to controvert that in the seniority list petitioner is at Sr. No.463.

4.

In the wake of aforesaid factual position, this Court is of the considered opinion that mistake has occurred on account of three ladies with same name and even two ladies having common father's name. The respondents are hereby directed to consider case of petitioner in the light of case of similarly situated employees. Let the needful be done within a period of two months.

5.

The petitioner shall be regularized from the date her juniors were regularized. She would not be entitled to arrears from the deemed date of regularization, however, she would be entitled to arrears and other notional benefits from the date of filing of petition before this Court. The arrears shall not carry interest, if released within three months from today, failing which interest would be payable @7.5% from the date expiry of said period till its payment.

6.

Disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 31.07.2025 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.02 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.