Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHOOP SINGH & ORS versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bhoop Singh & Ors v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-248-1989 [2006] RD-P&H 3094 (12 May 2006)

C.W.P.No.248 of 1989 [1]

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P.No.248 of 1989

Date of Decision: 23 -5-2006

Bhoop Singh and others ........Petitioner v.

State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.PATWALIA
***

Present: Mr.Vivek Singla, Advocate for

Mr.I.D.Singla, Advocate

for the petitioners.

Mr.Suresh Monga, Sr.DAG, Haryana

for the respondents.

***

P.S.PATWALIA, J. (Oral)

This writ petition has been filed by Bhoop Singh son of Inder Singh, Jai Singh son of Hazari Singh, Suresh Chand son of Kanwal Singh, Jasbir Singh son of Ram Phal and Balwant Singh son of Baldev Singh. All of them were working as Chowkidars under the control of General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Gurgaon. The petitioners had claimed a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise their services.

Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.Monga informed the Court that services of petitioner No.1 Bhoop Singh son of Inder Singh had been regularised with effect from 1.4.1993. Similarly services of petitioner No.2 Jai Singh son of Hazari Singh were also regularised and thereafter he has retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Petitioner No.3 Suresh C.W.P.No.248 of 1989 [2]

Chand son of Kanwal Singh expired in the year 1990 itself much before his claim for regularisation could be considered. Services of petitioner No.4 Jasbir Singh son of Ram Phal also had been regularised with effect from 1.4.1994. In so far as petitioner No.5 Balwant Singh son of Baldev Singh is concerned, it has been stated that he was never borne on the cadre of the answering respondents and therefore there was no occasion for the respondents to consider his claim for regularisation.

This communication dated 24.7.2005 is taken on record and marked as Mark `A'.

In this situation, Mr.Vivek Singla counsel for the petitioners states that he would not press this writ petition. He however states that the service rendered by the petitioners on daily wage basis should be counted towards qualifying service for pension. I am of the opinion that no such relief has been claimed in this writ petition. This would be totally an independent cause of action accruing to the petitioners only as a result of regularisation of their services.

Therefore, the petitioners are free to raise this issue in any other appropriate proceedings.

The writ petition is disposed of as not pressed.

( P.S.PATWALIA )

May 23, 2006. JUDGE

RC


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.