Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAGDISH CHANDER BAJAJ & ORS. versus JAGDISH CHANDER BAJAJ & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jagdish Chander Bajaj & Ors. v. Jagdish Chander Bajaj & Ors. - COCP-476-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 3739 (6 July 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.O.C.P. No.476 of 2004

Date of Decision:-10.7.2006

Jagdish Chander Bajaj & Ors. ....Petitioners vs.

Sant Kumar Joshi ....Respondent

***

CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
***

Present:- Ms.Promila Nain, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.R.D.Sharma, DAG Haryana.

***

JUDGMENT

The petitioners filed C.W.P.No.4767 of 1988 seeking a direction for the grant of selection grade to 20% of the Junior Auditors in accordance with Government's policy dated 15.1.1982 The writ petition was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 17.7.2001 and the respondents were directed "to grant the selection grade to 20% of the eligible persons in the cadre of Junior Auditors as per annexure P-2." It appears that the petitioners were still deprived of the selection grade, prompting them to initiate these contempt proceedings.

On February 20, 2006, this Court directed the respondents to file additional affidavit to explain the manner in which selection grade was stated to have been granted in terms of the directions issued by this Court, referred to above. In compliance to the said order, an additional affidavit dated 23.3.2006 has been filed and along with the said affidavit, a list (Annexure R-1) has been appended. A perusal of the said list reveals that the Junior Auditors who were found eligible have been granted the selection grade whereas some of the petitioners were not granted being "not eligible".

In paras 4 and 5 of the affidavit, the mode and manner in which selection grade has been granted, has been explained.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that some of the petitioners have been treated ineligible which is wholly illegal and arbitrary.

On the other hand learned State counsel contends that the eligibility was determined strictly as per the Government policy.

Having regard to the rival contentions noticed above, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to initiate appropriate proceedings to prove that they were eligible at the relevant time for the grant of selection grade and/or the same was erroneously granted to their juniors.

Rule discharged.

July 10, 2006 ( SURYA KANT )

poonam 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.