Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HUKAM SINGH & ORS versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Hukam Singh & Ors v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-6671-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 2317 (5 April 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

C.W.P. No. 6671 of 2006

Date of Decision: 02.05.2006

Hukam Singh and others

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI

PRESENT: Mr. Umesh Narang, Advocate,

for the petitioners.

JUDGMENT

M.M. KUMAR, J. (Oral)

The prayer made in the writ petition is for issuance of mandamus directing the respondents to grant benefit of one additional increment to the petitioners on their promotion to the post of Head Teachers. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court rendered in the case of Dev Raj Sehgal & others v. State of Punjab & others, 1995(3) RSJ 586 and Nand Lal and others v. State of Haryana (C.W.P. No.

7241 of 2000, decided on 11.3.2002).

For the aforementioned relief claimed in the present writ petition, the petitioners have already sent a legal notice dated 6.1.2006 (P-4) to the respondents.

Without going into the merits of the case, we deem it just and appropriate to direct the respondents to take cognizance of the C.W.P. No. 6671 of 2006

legal notice dated 6.1.2006 (P-4) sent by the petitioners and decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented to them. It shall be appreciated if the aforementioned judgments are taken into consideration while deciding the claim of the petitioners and a speaking order is passed. If the claim of the petitioners is found to be meritorious and decided in their favour then the benefit accruing to them shall be disbursed within a period of three months thereafter.

Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

(M.M. KUMAR)

JUDGE

(M.M.S. BEDI)

May 2, 2006 JUDGE

Pkapoor


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.