Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAKESH KUMAR & ORS versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rakesh Kumar & Ors v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-14227-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 6071 (29 August 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

C.W.P. No. 14227 of 2006

Date of Decision: September 7, 2006

Rakesh Kumar 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. Pankaj Maini, Advocate,

for the petitioners.

JUDGMENT

M.M. KUMAR, J. (Oral)

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the services of the petitioners on ad hoc basis w.e.f. their initial appointment as per the instructions issued by the Government vide letter No. 23096, dated 9.6.1999 (P-1) and in light of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Narender Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others (C.W.P. No. 8340 of 2000, decided on 12.2.2002, Annexure P-2). A further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to calculate the arrears of salary for the CWP No. 14227 of 2006

period from the initial appointment till the issuance of the instructions by the State Government vide letter dated 9.6.1999 (P-1).

For the relief claimed in the instant petition, the petitioners have also sent a legal notice, dated 19.4.2006 (P-3) to the respondents.

Without expressing opinion on merits as well as on the question of limitation, we deem it just and appropriate to direct the respondents to take cognizance of the legal notice, dated 19.4.2006 (P-3) sent by the petitioners and decide the same in accordance with law 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 a speaking order is passed. This order, however, shall not extend the period of limitation, if any.

Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

(M.M. KUMAR)

JUDGE

(M.M.S. BEDI)

September 7, 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.