Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PURAN SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Puran Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors - CWP-11572-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 5163 (3 August 2006)

CWP NO.11572 OF 2006 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP NO.11572 OF 2006

DATE OF DECISION: 31.07.2006

Puran Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others ....Respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRAN ANAND LALL

PRESENT: Mr. P.S. Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner.

J.S. Khehar, J. (oral)

The petitioner is stated to have been inducted into the employment of the respondents as a conductor. During the course of his employment, a regular departmental enquiry is alleged to have been conducted against him. On the culmination thereof, his services are stated to have been terminated by an order dated 5.7.1995. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 5.7.1995, the petitioner is stated to have preferred an appeal. It is alleged that the said appeal was dismissed on 26.4.1996, and thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision petition on 10.5.1996.

The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that despite the fact that the petitioner preferred the aforesaid revision petition more than 10 years prior to the filing of the instant writ petition, no decision has been taken thereon till date.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will be satisfied if the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to take a final decision on the aforestated revision petition CWP NO.11572 OF 2006 1

dated 10.5.1996 (Annexure P1).

Notice of motion.

On our asking, Mr. B.S. Chahal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. Learned counsel for the respondents states that he has no objection to the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

In view of the above, without going into the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner, we consider it just and appropriate to dispose of the instant writ petition by directing respondent No.1 to take a final decision on the revision petition allegedly filed by the petitioner on 10.5.1996. The instant direction shall, however, be subject to the condition that the petitioner has indeed filed a revision petition on 10.5.1996 and further that no decision has been taken thereon till date.

In case, in furtherance of the directions issued hereinabove, respondent No.1 needs to pass a formal order on the revision petition allegedly filed by the petitioner on 10.5.1996, the same be communicated to him within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Disposed of accordingly.

Order dasti on payment of usual charges.

( J.S. Khehar )

Judge

( Kiran Anand Lall )

July 31, 2006. Judge

vig

CWP NO.11572 OF 2006 1

CWP NO.11572 OF 2006 1


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.