HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ****

Madan Lal Sethi ... Petitioner VS.

State of Haryana & Ors. ... Respondents ****

1. Judgment reserved on 27.01.2026 2. Judgment pronounced on 23.03.2026 3. Judgment uploaded on 25.03.2026

4. Whether operative or full judgment Full 5. Delay in pronouncement of full judgment and reasons, if any NA ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL ****

Present: Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Advocate, Ms. Richa Sethi, Advocate and Mr. Tej Bahadur Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG Haryana Mr. Ravi Malik, Advocate for respondents No.5&6 ****

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

Prayer (1). The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 08.08.2018 (Annexure P6) passed by respondent No.4 whereby the objections filed by petitioner for finalization of tentative seniority list of Clerks dated 17.05.1999 in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Panipat w.e.f. 31.10.1989, have been rejected. A further direction is sought to make the tentative seniority list of clerks as final w.e.f. 31.10.1989 and grant consequential benefits to the petitioner.

Contentions raised (2). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined as Clerk on regular basis on 08.11.1973 in the Revenue Department and was eventually promoted to the rank of Superintendent in February, 2010 and thereafter he retired on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.03.2010 from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Sonipat. While submitting that his services are governed by the Haryana Revenue Department District Subordinate (Group C) Service Rules, 1988 (in short, the 1988 Rules) and after the bifurcation of Karnal, the petitioner was posted at Panipat but his seniority was governed as per the parent District of Karnal as the petitioner was not transferred rather he came to be posted at Panipat upon bifurcation.

(3). However, it is pointed out that as per the seniority list dated 23.03.1995, one Raj Rani and Sheela Rani were shown senior to him to which he objected and even filed CWP No.14790 of 1997 which was disposed of on 10.11.1997 directing the respondents to finalise the seniority list of Clerks in District Panipat and in pursuance thereof, a final seniority list was circulated on 07.05.1999 (Annexure P1) which depicted the petitioner at Sr.No.47 followed by Sheela Rani at Sr.No.58 and Raj Rani at Sr.No.59 w.e.f. 31.10.1989.

(4). He further submits that CWP No.6523 of 1999 was preferred by Sheela Rani and Raj Rani against the said seniority list, wherein initially the operation of the said list was ordered to be stayed but subsequently, the writ petition itself was dismissed by this Court on 29.07.2015 abating the effect of the interim order. It is further submitted that after the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner was asked to file objections to the seniority list of 1999 (Annexure P1) which he filed on 10.02.2016.

(5). He further argued that the seniority list dated 07.05.1999 w.e.f. 31.10.1989 has attained finality since the CWP No.6523 of 1999 challenging the said seniority list has been dismissed and it is well settled that the interim order if any passed in the writ petition cease to exist as the main writ petition itself has been dismissed as infructuous and as such, the petitioner deserve notional promotion as Assistant Superintendent and Superintendent along with consequential benefits with an accelerated effect. Reliance has been placed on Geetha VM & Ors. vs. Rethnasenan K.& Ors. 2025(4) SLR 214 wherein it has been held that absorbed employees are entitled to seniority from the service in their original department where the transfer or absorption was not on their own request but in furtherance to the policy decision.

(6). It is further averred that Raj Rani and Sheela Rani were transferred from Kurukshetra to Karnal in the year 1978 and then to Panipat on their own requests