JASWANT SINGH LAMBA Vs. HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Appellant herein is aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 19-7-2005 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, dismissing a review petition seeking review of the judgment dated 23-11-1992. The review of the said judgment was sought for by the appellant, inter alia, on the premise that the decision of the High Court, allowing a writ petition filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 resulted in loss of his seniority. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were appointed as Sectional Officers on an ad hoc basis on or about 11-11-1982. Respondent No.4 was appointed on a temporary post on 27-9-1984, whereas the appellant was appointed on 5-10-1984. Respondent No.5 is said to have been ap pointed on a temporary post by an order dated 7-6-1985. In a seniority list published on 23-12-1987, their seniority was shown from the date of their regular appointment. The said respondents, however, contended that as they were appointed in terms of the recruitment rules against permanent vacancies, they had wrongly been appointed on an ad hoc basis on and from 11-11-1982. Their representation that they were entitled to be appointed with effect from 11-11-1982 on a regular basis was rejected. They filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 2-6-1990, praying, inter alia, for the follow ing reliefs :

(3.) The said writ petition was allowed by the High Court by an order dated 23-11-1992 directing that the said respondents shall be deemed to be in the service of the respondent on a regular basis from the date of their initial appointment, holding : "After considering the entire matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents deserves to be rejected. Undisputedly, the petitioners were initially ap pointed after they had been selected by a Committee with effect from November 11, 1982 and they had been continuously working as such without any break till they were appointed on regular basis. Though the services of the petitioner No.1 stood terminated by serving him a notice dated November 11, 1983, yet he has not re lieved and was allowed to continue on the post after he gave an undertaking that in case extension is not granted, he will not claim any salary etc. Later on, he was granted extension of another six months by order dated December 2, 1983. There fore, there is no break in his service even till his regular appointment."