Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUNIL CHOPRA versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sunil Chopra v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-7015-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 2769 (1 May 2006)

C.W.P. No. 7015 of 2006 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P. No. 7015 of 2006

Date of Decision: May 8, 2006

Sunil Chopra

.....Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana and others

.....Respondents

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

Present:- Mr. D.V. Sharma, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

-.-

M.M. KUMAR. J. (ORAL)

The prayer made by the petitioner in the instant petition is to issue a direction to the respondents to consider his case for promotion as a Project Manager from the date his junior has been promoted with all consequential benefits. It is admitted position that the petitioner has been promoted on the post of Project Manager on November 21, 2005 (P-12) whereas the so-called junior is alleged to have been promoted on February 27, 1996 (P-9). The petitioner has not challenged the promotion of his so- called junior in the year 1996 and was content with filing repeated C.W.P. No. 7015 of 2006 [2]

representations. The only ground convass before us with regard to explanating delay is that the petitioner was not intimated that Mr. R.S.

Narwal was promoted on February 27, 1996 (P-9). The other alternative prayer made by the petitioner is that legal notice served by him on the respondents on February 6, 2006, (P-13) may be got decided from the respondents and a mandamus in that regard be issued.

Having heard the learned counsel at some length, we have reached the conclusion that the prayer made by the petitioner deserves to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches The cause of action, if any, has arisen in favour of the petitioner in February 1996 and he could have easily agitated his right before this Court or any other forum in accordance with law within a period of three years. According to well settled principles, even a civil suit for the aforementioned relief would not be competent as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Bhai Lal Bhai, AIR 1964 SC 1006 and S.S. Rathore Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1990 SC 10. The argument that the petitioner has not been intimated about the promotion of Mr. R.S. Narwal has not impressed us because it is unbelievable that a person who considered himself senior to another would not come to know of his promotion within a reasonable time. The other prayer with regard to issuance of a direction for deciding the legal notice could also not be accepted for the same reason because no enforceable right has arisen in favour of the petitioner. The right, if any, has become an imperfect right which cannot be enforced by issuance of a writ of Mandamus, therefore, we regret our inability to issue any such direction.

C.W.P. No. 7015 of 2006 [3]

In view of the above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.

(M.M.KUMAR)

JUDGE

May 8, 2006 (M.M.S.BEDI)

sanjay JUDGE


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.