Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJPAL SHARMA versus STATE OF HARYANA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rajpal Sharma v. State of Haryana - CWP-11106-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 4257 (17 July 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

C.W.P. No. 11106 of 2006

Date of Decision: 24.7.2006

Rajpal Sharma

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

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

PRESENT: Mr. D.S. Rawat, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

M.M. KUMAR, J. (Oral)

This petition prays for quashing impugned order dated 5.10.2005 (P-5) to the extent that the petitioner has been promoted against 77 posts which have been created after August 16, 1991 and not against 41 posts, which were in existence prior to that date in grave violation of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Zile Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, (C.W.P. No.

17681 of 2004, decided on 5.7.2005 (P-4) as well as the rules governing the post of S.D.O. at the relevant point of time. A further prayer has been made for issuance of direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of S.D.O. w.e.f. 1.1.1990 in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Zile Singh's C.W.P. No. 11106 of 2006

case, against one of the 15 posts out of total 41 posts created before August 16, 1991 and in accordance with the Rules followed at the relevant time by the respondent department along with all consequential benefits.

For the relief claimed in the instant petition, the petitioner has already served a legal notice, dated 9.1.2006 (P-6) upon 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 legal notice sent by the petitioner 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. If the claim of the petitioner is found to be meritorious and decided in his favour then the benefit accruing to the petitioner shall be disbursed within a further period of three months thereafter. It shall be appreciated if a speaking order is passed.

Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

(M.M. KUMAR)

JUDGE

(M.M.S. BEDI)

July 24, 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.