SUSHIL KUMAR SAINI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR.Ahuja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is apparently flogging a dead horse. The claim of the petitioner, who is no more, is not only pressed hard despite knowing that even two respondents, against whom, he was claiming seniority, are also died.

(2.) THE seniority claim of the late petitioner, which is being pursued by his L.Rs, is made out the ground of his appointment in the regular service. It appears that the petitioner as well as the respondents were initially appointed as Computor in the pay scale of Rs.110-225 in the Directorate of Land Records, Haryana. He joined the duties on 18.9.1978. Subsequently, however, he was absorbed in the respondent-office w.e.f 1.3.1979. Though the petitioner would make reference to various Government notifications but the fact remains that he was regularised w.e.f 15.9.1982. Like him, the private respondents, except respondent No.6, were also regularised with effect from 15.9.1982. THE services of respondent No.6 were regularised on 1.4.1985. THE grievance of the petitioner is that the date of regularisation of the private respondents was subsequently changed to 1.1.1980.

(3.) THE record would show that when the petitioner was shown senior to the private respondents, they had filed a civil suit, which was allowed. THE petitioner not only filed an appeal against the judgment passed by the Civil Court but also filed present writ petition, which he claims to have filed prior to coming to know of the filing of Civil Court. Apparently, the petitioner has pursued two remedies. His appeal filed against the judgement rendered by the Trial Court was allowed only on the ground that he had challenged the seniority in the writ petition.