Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAGBIR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jagbir Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors. - CWP-9456-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 9234 (26 October 2006)

CWP No. 9456 of 2005 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP NO. 9456 of 2005

DATE OF DECISION : 31.10.2006

Jagbir Singh

......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. MS Kang, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Rathee,Sr.DAG, Hry for respondents No.1 Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for respondents 2 & 3 M.M.KUMAR,J

Mr. M.S. Kang, learned counsel for the petitioner states that on 13.6.2005 the Division Bench of this Court had passed an interim order expressing prima facie opinion that the petitioner has been subjected to discrimination inasmuch as the period of three years prescribed for deputation is not being extended to the petitioner. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is to complete the aforementioned period of three years on 31.1.2007. Ms.Vandana Malhotra, Advocate appearing for respondents 2 and 3 has,however, cited two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mahesh Kumar K.Parmar and others vs S.I.G. of Police and others (2002) 9 S.C.C. 485 and Ram Ganga Command Area Development Authority and Another vs Sheetal Kumar Vaish and CWP No. 9456 of 2005 2

others (2003) 9 SCC 32 and argued that a deputationist has no right of continuation in the borrowing department after the expiry of deputation period.

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy raised and keeping in view that the period of three years is to be completed within next three months i.e. 31.1.2007, we direct respondents 2 and 3 to retain the petitioner till the expiry of the aforementioned period. The petitioner shall have no right after 31.1.2007.

The rights of the parties shall not be prejudiced if the respondents wish to retain the petitioner beyond that period.

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

( M.M.KUMAR )

JUDGE

October 31 ,2006 ( M.M.S.BEDI )

TSM 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.