Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BABU LAL & ORS versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Babu Lal & Ors v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-4514-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 1725 (16 March 2006)

CWP NO.4514 OF 2006 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP NO.4514 OF 2006

DATE OF DECISION: 23.3.2006

Babu Lal and others ....Petitioners.

Versus

State of Haryana and others ....Respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. PATWALIA

PRESENT: Mr.N.K.Malhotra , Advocate for the petitioners.

J.S. Khehar, J. (oral)

Learned counsel for the petitioners wishes to withdraw the instant writ petition qua petitioners No.1 and 2. The instant writ petition is accordingly dismissed qua petitioners No.1 and 2.

Qua petitioner No.3 Ram Bir, his claim is that he has a superior right for posting as Peon over Ram Saran. In order to authenticate the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the seniority list Annexure P9, wherein Ram Bir (petitioner No.3) has been placed at serial No.8, whereas Ram Saran has been placed in the same seniority list at serial No.9.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner No.3 addressed a representation dated 22.11.2005 (Annexure P13) to the respondents, claiming the posting of petitioner No.3 as Peon. It is, however, pointed out that no decision has been taken thereon till date.

CWP NO.4514 OF 2006 2

Learned for petitioner No.3 states that the petitioner will be satisfied if the instant writ petition is disposed of by requiring respondent No.5, to take a final decision on the representation filed by respondent No.3 on 22.11.2005(Annexure P13)

In view of the above, without going into the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner, we consider it just and appropriate to dispose of the instant writ petition by directing respondent No.5 i.e. the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Rohtak, to take a final decision on the representation dated 22.11.2005(Annexure P13)., by passing a well reasoned speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Disposed of accordingly.

Order dasti on payment of usual charges.

( J.S. Khehar )

Judge

( P.S. Patwalia )

March 23, 2006. Judge

vig


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.