LPA-1826-2024 106 IN THE SANDEEP KU STATE OF HA CORAM: HO HO Present: M for SANJEEV PR CM-4326-LPA Ap is allowed, and Main case 1. This LPA order dat whereby 2. Learned come into the Cabi Junior C Yoga Co Cabinet, that the l 024 (O&M) THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH P KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. F HARYANA AND OTHERS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEE **** Mr. Ishnoor Singh, Advocate for the appellants. **** V PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) LPA-2024 Application for condonation of dela and accordingly delay is condoned. is LPA has been preferred by the origin er dated 27.05.2024 passed by the Sin ereby the writ petition was dismissed. arned counsel submits that the notific me into effect only from the date when Cabinet, and therefore the seniority ior Coaches and Junior Yoga Coache ga Coaches, would be from the date o binet, as mentioned in Annexure P-4 t the learned Single Judge has erred in NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH LPA-1826-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.01.2025 . . . . Appellants . . . . Respondents SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA ral) of delay of 10 days in filing of appeal original writ petitioners assailing the he Single Judge in CWP-12348-2024 ssed. notification dated 16.07.2009 would when the same was duly approved by iority upon merger of the cadre of oaches in the cadre of Coaches and date of the approval taken from the 4 dated 06.08.2010. He submits rred in holding otherwise. M) 2025 s s peal g the 2024 ould d by re of s and the mits MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.09 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1826-2024 3. Counsel Welfare till the re the appel Rule, sen 4. We have of the Sin passed by 5. It is a se Governm the date t a separat separate seeking a be a grou seniority 6. It would 16.07.200 sa Yo Co ru De 024 (O&M) unsel has further relied on Rule 11 of elfare Department (Group B) State Serv the respondents who were in different appellants, they would not be entitle le, seniority would be separate to determ e have carefully considered the submissi the Single Judge. We find that no interf ssed by the Single Judge. is a settled position of law that once vernment merging two cadres, the sam date the notification has been issued, u separate date. Since the notification date arate date of merger, the exercise co king approval from the Cabinet and fr a ground to deny the Junior Coaches iority from the date of issuance of the n would be also relevant to quote the lan .07.2009 which reads as under: “The Governor of Haryana is sanction to merge the cadres of Junio Yoga Coaches with the cadres o Coaches, respectively. 2. The necessary amendments rules will be made separately. 3. This issues with the con Department and Chief Secretary 11 of the Haryana Sports and Youth te Service Rules, 1996 to submit that ferent cadre merged with the cadre of entitled for seniority, and as per the determine for each cadre. submissions and also perused the order interference is warranted in the order once a notification is issued by the he same would come into effect from ssued, unless the notification mentions n dated 16.07.2009 does not give any ise conducted by the department of and from different authorities cannot aches and Junior Yoga Coaches their f the notification. the language of the notification dated na is pleased to accord the Junior Coaches and Junior s of Coaches and Yoga ents in the relevant service concurrence of Finance tary to Government of outh t that re of r the order order y the from tions any nt of nnot their ated MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.09 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1826-2024 Ha II/ GS 7. In view o born in se above the pursuanc subseque 8. Merely p several re Yoga Co 9. It is also dated 16. 10. In view passed by same is a 11. All pend 07.01.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether 2. Whether 024 (O&M) Haryana vide their U.O. N II/2661/4007, dated 06.11.2008 and GSI, dated 15.07.2009, respectively. view of above, the seniority of the petit rn in service after the notification dated ove the Junior Coaches and Junior Yog rsuance of the notification dated 16 sequently. rely passing of an order subsequently eral reasons, cannot deprive the concer ga Coaches for entitlement to seniority is also noticed that the petitioners have ted 16.07.2009 on any count. view thereto, we do not find any re ssed by the Single Judge. The appeal is e is accordingly dismissed. ll pending applications also stand dispose (SANJE (ME ther speaking/reasoned? Ye ther reportable? Ye No. 40/28/2008-4FD- and U.O. No.34/37/2008-4 ely.” petitioners who were appointed and dated 16.07.2009 cannot be over and r Yoga Coaches who were merged in ed 16.07.2009, by executing order uently, the delay whereof can be for concerned Junior Coaches and Junior iority from the date of merger. s have not challenged the notification any reasons to differ from the order eal is found to be without merits. The disposed of accordingly. ANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No and r and ed in order e for Junior ation order s. The MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.09 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document