Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAMESH CHANDER BANSAL & ORS. versus SHRI R.S. GUJRAL, IAS & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ramesh Chander Bansal & Ors. v. Shri R.S. Gujral, IAS & Ors. - COCP-710-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 8923 (19 October 2006)

COCP No. 710 of 2005 -: 1 :-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

COCP No. 710 of 2005

Date of decision: October 30, 2006.

Ramesh Chander Bansal & Ors.

...Petitioner(s)

v.

Shri R.S. Gujral, IAS & Ors.

...Respondent(s)

Present: Shri R.N. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri R.D. Sharma, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

Short reply by way of affidavit of K.K. Khandelwal, Commissioner-cum-Director General, School Education, Haryana respondent No.2 is taken on record.

The petitioners filed CWP No.19847 of 2004, which was disposed of by this Court on 16.12.2004 with a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the legal notice which the petitioners had already served, by passing a speaking order within a period of two months.

Alleging non-compliance of the above stated order, this contempt petition has been filed.

In response to the show cause notice, Mr. Anand Sharma, IAS, Director Primary Education, Haryana respondent No.3 has filed an affidavit dated 25.9.2005. Along with the said affidavit, a copy of the order COCP No. 710 of 2005 -: 2 :-

dated 8.9.2005, vide which the claim putforth by the petitioners in their legal notice has been considered and disposed of, has also been appended.

In his separate affidavit, Mr. K.K. Khandelwal has also averred that the petitioners' claim with regard to the grant of Assured Career Progression has been duly considered and the same having been not found tenable, has been rejected by passing a reasoned order dated 22.9.2005, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure R-1 along with his affidavit.

In view of the fact that respondents No.2 and 3 have considered the petitioners' claim, as putforth by them in their legal notice, and have disposed of the same by passing reasoned order, this contempt petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to impugn the aforesaid orders before an appropriate forum, if so advised.

Rule discharged.

October 30, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan 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.