CWP-19985 IN TH 102+203 Karan Singh State of Hary CORAM: Present : HARPREET CM-2241-CW CPC for plac P-20. allowed, subj on record. 1 985-2011 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA CWP Date o Singh and others VERSUS Haryana and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate wit Mr. Amarnath Garg, Advocates Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. AG H Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate Mr. N.C. Kinra, Mr. Harsh Kinr for respondents No.3, 4, 5, 8, 11 **** REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) CWP-2026 The present application has be r placing on record the copy of order In view of the grounds mentione d, subject to all just exceptions. Annex Registry is directed to place the NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH CWP-19985-2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 12, 2026 ....Petitioner SUS ...Responden HARPREET SINGH BRAR ate with Mr. Vikram and cates for the petitioners. AG Haryana-respondent No.1. ocate for respondent No.2. h Kinra and Ms. Apoorva, Advocates , 8, 11, 17 and 18. has been filed under Section 151 of f order dated 17.07.2008 as Annexure ntioned in the application, the same is Annexure A-20 is ordered to be taken ce the same at an appropriate place. 2026 ioners ondents ocates 51 of exure ame is taken PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.20 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19985 Main 1. Constitution for quashing 03.09.2009 (A has been alte petitioners by ante dated p Recorders/Sto petitioner in u this Court in 1983(1) SLR (Annexure P dated 29.11.1 mandamus finalize the se this Court up 2. primary griev 03.09.2009 (A judgment ren titled Rajbir 2 985-2011 The present petition has been fil tution of India praying for issuance of ashing the tentative seniority list of M 009 (Annexure P-1) to the extent that en altered and the private respondents ers by placing them over and above ated promotion in the feeder cadre ers/Store Keepers/Clerks after 23 t er in utter violation of the judgment r urt in Rajbir Singh and others Versu SLR 38 (Annexure P-2), against w ure P-3) was also dismissed by Hon 29.11.1982. Further praying for issua directing the respondents to grant e the seniority list in view of the above urt upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Co Learned counsel for the petition y grievance of the petitioners qua the 009 (Annexure P-1) is that the same nt rendered by the Division Bench o ajbir Singh and others Versus S een filed under Article 226/227 of the ce of a writ in the nature of certiorari st of Mandi Supervisors as stood on nt that seniority position of petitioners ndents have been shown senior to the above the petitioners by giving them cadre of Auction Recorders/Arrival 23 to 27 years of the service of ment rendered by a Division Bench of ersus State of Haryana and others, inst which the SLP-9650-59 of 1982 y Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order r issuance of a writ in the nature of grant seniority to the petitioners and above judgment of Division Bench of me Court. etitioners, inter alia, contends that the ua the impugned seniority list dated same is in direct contravention of the ench of this Court in CWP-756-1982 us State of Haryana and others of the rari od on ioners to the them rrival ice of nch of ers, 1982 order ure of rs and nch of at the dated of the 982 ers, PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.20 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19985 decided on 2 finality and s 29.11.1982 p the appeal pr out therein c appointed ov contained in in the year 19 subsequent to the petitioner further conte decree bearin petitioners w judgment re the notice of subordinate c judgment ren jurisdiction u the same stan No. 32, name as withdrawn action), none bar of res ju 3 985-2011 d on 27.05.1982 (Annexure P-2). Th and stands affirmed by the Hon’ble S 982 passed in SLP No. 9650-59 of peal preferred against the judgment w erein conferred a preferential right u ted over and above any other person ed in para-9 of the said judgment, th year 1983. Admittedly, the private res uent to the re-employment of the pet itioners are entitled to seniority in term contended that reliance placed by th bearing CS No. 256-1999 is wholl ers were not impleaded as parties to nt rendered in Rajbir Singh’s case ice of the learned trial Court. It is trit inate civil court cannot override or nt rendered by a Division Bench ction under Article 226 of the Constitu e stands affirmed by the Hon’ble Su , namely Sh. Rattan Singh, who had fil drawn on 17.07.2008 with liberty to f , none of the other petitioners were im res judicata is not attracted. It is furt 2). The said judgment has attained n’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 59 of 1982 (Annexure P-3), whereby ent was dismissed. The ratio culled right upon the petitioners to be re person. In pursuance of the mandate ent, the petitioners were re-appointed ate respondents came to be appointed he petitioners in the year 1983; thus, in terms of the judicial mandate. It is by the respondents upon civil court wholly misplaced, inasmuch as the ies to the said suit and, moreover, the case (supra) was never brought to is trite law that a decree passed by a de or dilute the binding effect of a ench of this Court in exercise of onstitution of India, particularly when ble Supreme Court. Except petitioner had filed CWP-4988-2007 (dismissed rty to file afresh on the same cause of were impleaded as parties; hence, the is further borne out from Annexures tained dated ereby culled be re- ndate ointed ointed ; thus, It is court as the er, the ght to d by a t of a ise of when itioner issed use of e, the xures PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.20 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19985 P-13 and P- came to be p employment beyond the p settled that p respondent- years without 3. the case of t herein stands this Court in passed in LP decided on 04 4. the record w upon retrenc whereas the p promoted bet cadre was su proposition o march over t exercise of w 4 985-2011 -14 that the private respondents, o be promoted between 29.06.1983 an ment of the petitioners in January the prescribed quota is unsustainable that promotions in excess of quota ar -Board unsettled the settled senio ithout issuance of any show cause not Learned counsel for the respon e of the petitioners and are ad idem stands covered by the judgment rend ourt in Rajbir Singh’s case (supra LPA-3-2010 titled Tejram and oth d on 04.09.2014. I have heard learned counsel fo ord with their able assistance. A per retrenchment, the petitioners were r s the private respondents, who were C ted between 29.06.1983 and 30.03.199 as subsequent to the re-appointment ition of law that a decree of a civil cou over the ratio of law laid down by a D e of writ jurisdiction under Article 22 dents, who were Class-IV employees, 983 and 30.03.1999, i.e., after the re anuary 1983. Any promotion made inable in the eyes of law, it being well uota are null and void. Moreover, the seniority position after a lapse of 2 se notice to the petitioners. respondents are unable to distinguish idem that the controversy involved t rendered by the Division Bench of (supra) as well as by the judgment d others Versus Sunita and others nsel for the parties and have perused A perusal of the record reveals that ere re-appointed in January 1983, were Class-IV employees, came to be 03.1999. Thus, their induction into the tment of the petitioners. It is a settled vil court cannot be permitted to steal a by a Division Bench of this Court in e 226 of the Constitution of India, oyees, he re- made g well er, the 24 guish olved ch of gment ers, erused ls that 1983, to be to the ettled steal a urt in India, PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.20 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19985 particularly Supreme Cou 5. impleaded as Hon’ble Sup (1994) 1 SCC The observat 6. has been con titled Rajbir Moreover, th Supreme Cou reads as unde 5 985-2011 larly when the said judgment has e Court vide order dated 29.11.1982 ( Further, in the civil suit, none ded as defendants. As such in term le Supreme Court in S.P. Changalvar SCC 1, a decree obtained by the fra servations made therein may be reads “….. that except procee proceedings where a duty is disclose all the facts, in all oth cast upon the plaintiff to come prove it by true evidence. It fundamental principle of law of in the maxim 'interest reipublica be held that a judgment obtaine false to his knowledge, could fraud, in a subsequent litigation The issue regarding preferential en considered by a Division Bench ajbir Singh and others Versus ver, the said judgment has attained fin e Court. The observations made in t s under:- t has been upheld by the Hon’ble 1982 (Annexure P-3). none of the present petitioners were terms of the law laid down by the alvaraya Naidu Versus Jagannath the fraud or concealment is a nullity reads as under:- roceedings for probate and other is cast upon a party litigant to l other cases, there is no legal duty ome to Court with a true case and . It would cut at the root of the w of finality of litigation enunciated blicae ut sit finis litium' if it should tained by a plaintiff in a false case, uld be set aside on the ground of tion." rential right of a retrenched employee ench of this Court in CWP-756-1982 us State of Haryana and others ed finality up to the level of Hon’ble de in the Rajbir Singh’s case (supra) on’ble were y the nath ullity. ther t to duty and the ated ould ase, d of loyee 982 ers. on’ble supra) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.20 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19985 7. disposed of (supra). Cons hereby set consequentia petitioners sh benefits are r of a certified be entitled to 8. matter pertai 6 985-2011 “As regards the lega retrenched employees by Sec- Act, it may be observed, it is needs a person in his employ t which the retrenched emplo retrenched this officer has to employee to till that post in t Disputes (Punjab) Rules 1958 person including a person who u appointed to the post by prom averse to take back the retrench always amend its rules to re promotes and render the right employee by the provision of Disputes Act illusory.” In view of the aforesaid submiss ed of in terms of the judgment ren . Consequently, the seniority list dated set aside qua the petitioners, w uential benefits arising therefrom. H ers shall not be entitled to any inter s are released within a period of four rtified copy of this order. In the event tled to interest @ 6% per annum therea Learned counsel for the private pertains to an old dispute and, in c legal right conferred upon the -25 H of the Industrial Disputes it is all pervasive. If the employer loy to fill up a post of the category mployee has held before being s to be made to the retrenched in terms of Rule 77 of Industrial 958 in preference to every other ho under the service rules could be promotion otherwise an employer enched employee or employees can o reserve all such posts for the right conferred upon a retrenched n of Sec. 25-H of the Industrial bmissions, the present petition stands nt rendered in Rajbir Singh’s case t dated 03.09.2009 (Annexure P-1) is ers, who shall be entitled to all om. However, it is clarified that the interest, provided the consequential f four months from the date of receipt event of default, the petitioners shall thereafter. private respondents submits that the , in case there is any deficiency or the utes oyer gory eing ched trial ther d be oyer can the ched trial stands case 1) is to all at the ential eceipt s shall at the cy or PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.20 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19985 discrepancy w the dates of p approach the 9. disposed of a February 12 P.C 7 985-2011 ancy with regard to the dates of re-ap es of promotion of the private respond ch the respondent-Board. The said libe All pending miscellaneous app ed of accordingly. 12, 2026 Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : appointment of the petitioners or espondents, liberty may be granted to id liberty is granted. us application(s), if any, shall stand (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No ers or ted to stand RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.20 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document