Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KAMLA VERMA versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kamla Verma v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-16294-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 8144 (9 October 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

CWP No. 16294 of 2006

Date of Decision: October 13, 2006

Kamla Verma

...Petitioner

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. Manohar Lall, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

M.M. KUMAR, J. (Oral)

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 20.3.2006 (P-10) whereby the representation of the petitioner regarding appointment of Shri Parveen Kumar, dependent son of late Shri Rajinder Parshad, Forest Guard, has been filed. Challenge has also been made to the order dated 8.1.2004 (P-8) whereby petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with the instructions dated 3.11.1988 and 8.5.1995 (P-1 & P-2 respectively), has been rejected by respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased CWP No. 16294 of 2006

Government Employees Rules, 2003. A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to decide legal notice dated 16.8.2006 (P-11) sent by the petitioner to the respondents for consideration of her claim under the old Ex-gratia policy in terms of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jai Ram v. UHBVNL, 2004 (5) SLR 581 (P-7).

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, dated 16.8.2006 (P-11) 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. It shall be appreciated if a speaking order is passed by taking into consideration judgment of this Court in the case of Jai Ram v.

UHBVNL, 2004 (5) SLR 581 (P-7).

Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

(M.M. KUMAR)

JUDGE

(M.M.S. BEDI)

October 13, 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.