Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAGBIR SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


JAGBIR SINGH & Ors. v. STATE OF HARYANA & Ors. - CWP-870-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 61 (9 January 2006)

CWP No.870 of 2006 Page numbers

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.

CWP No.870 of 2006

Date of decision: 23.1.2006

Jagbir Singh and others.

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others.

....Respondent

Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal

Present: Mr. Pankaj Maini, Advocate

for the petitioner.

...

J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral).

The petitioners claim to have been inducted into the service of the respondents as Assistant Pump Operators. It is also the case of the petitioners, that they had been regularised in the service of the respondents as Assistant Pump Operators. Be that as it may, it is pointed out, that the petitioners have been required to discharge duties against the posts of CWP No.870 of 2006 Page numbers

clerks, and as such, they have been rendering service against the posts of clerks since 1993. On account of their uninterrupted service in the cadre of clerks, the petitioners claim absorption in the cadre of clerks. In order to raise the aforesaid claim, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 28.2.1997 (Annexure P-13), on which the concerned officer affixed his note asserting, that the claim of the petitioners would mature after they had rendered service for a period of five years in the cadre of clerks. The note dated 20.5.1997 also acknowledges, that the said position would mature after 31.3.1998. Despite the noting made by the respondents on the representation addressed by the petitioners (dated 28.2.1997 Annexure P- 13), no further order seems to have been passed by the respondents. It is, therefore, that the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states, that the petitioners will be satisfied, if the instant writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to take a final decision on their representation dated 28.2.1997 (Annexure P-13).

In view of the above, without going into the merits of the claim raised by the petitioners, we consider it just and appropriate to dispose of CWP No.870 of 2006 Page numbers

the instant writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh representation on the claim noticed hereinabove. In case, such a representation is made by the petitioners within two weeks from today, the same will be disposed of by respondent No.6 i.e. the Executive Engineer, Division No.3, Public Works Department, Public Health, Hisar, by passing a well reasoned speaking order, within two months from the date of receipt of the aforesaid representation, coupled with a certified copy of this order.

Disposed of accordingly.

Order dasti on payment of usual charges.

( J.S. Khehar )

Judge.

(S.N. Aggarwal)

Judge.

23.01.2006

sk.


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.