Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PUNJAB STATE JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES CONFEDER versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Punjab State Judicial Employees Confeder v. State of Punjab & Anr. - CWP-17242-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 4725 (24 July 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

C.W.P. No. 17242 of 1997

Date of Decision: July 20, 2006

Punjab State Judicial Employees Confederation and others.

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another.

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

PRESENT: Mr. Manoj Sood, Advocate,

for the petitioners.

Mr. S.K. Bhanot, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate

for the Chandigarh Administration.

JUDGMENT

M.M. KUMAR, J. (Oral)

This petition seeks issuance of direction to the respondents to create and sanction ministerial posts for Subordinate judiciary in the State of Punjab on the basis of administrative decision taken by the High Court in April, 1995. A perusal of interlocutory order dated 21.7.1999, passed by the Division Bench shows that the learned State counsel informed the Court that a Committee of four members was constituted for periodical review of the requirement of ministerial staff in the Subordinate Courts in the State of Punjab, CWP No. 17242 of 1997

which comprised of Special Secretary, Department of Information and Technology, Joint Registrar (Co-ordination), Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, Joint Secretary Home (P), Department of Home Affairs and Justice and Officer on Special Duty (Legal), Department of Finance. As per the directions given by the Division Bench on 21.7.1999, the Committee was required to meet within a week from the date of the order and to take decision within 45 days by making recommendation in that behalf. A copy of the notification dated 20.7.1999 constituting the aforementioned Committee has been placed on record as Annexure A2 with C.M. No. 1417 of 2000.

Thereafter certain more interlocutory orders were passed by the Division Bench on 11.2.2002, 8.3.2002, 13.3.2002, 14.8.2002, 23.10.2002 and so on and so forth. The order dated 18.2.2003 indicates that even the work of computerization in U.T.

Administration, Chandigarh was included.

We have been apprised that computerization in the High Court as well as in the two States of Punjab and Haryana is being undertaken extensively and making a speedy progress. The Committee for reviewing the staff, which has been notified by notification dated 20.7.1999 has also been working. Therefore, we dispose of this petition by leaving it open to the petitioners to move an appropriate application for revival of the petition in case such a necessity arises. The aforementioned course has been adopted as extensive computerization has already been undertaken by virtue of huge fund which have been made available by the Central CWP No. 17242 of 1997

Government and NIC is implementing the project in the States of Punjab and Haryana as well as Union Territory of Chandigarh.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

(M.M. KUMAR)

JUDGE

(M.M.S. BEDI)

July 20, 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.