Partly allowed

Hari Krishan and Ors. v. Maharishi Dayandand Uni., Rohtak and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Aug 2010CWP/14412/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a PIL by Lab. Attendants alleging promotion irregularities at a university, directing the respondents to decide on the petitioners' representations within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to take a decision on the petitioners' representations within three months from service of the certified copy of this order.

Hari Krishan and Ors. Vs Maharishi… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP. No. 14412 of 2010 Date of Decision: 20.8.2010.

Hari Kishan & others

--Petitioners

Versus

M.D.U., Rohtak and others

¶7

--Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI.

¶9

Present:Mr. N.L. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

¶11

PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL)

¶12

Notice of motion.

¶13

Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate present in the Court has been asked to accept notice on behalf of Dr. Balram Gupta, Advocate for respondents.

¶14

Keeping in view the nature of relief claimed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself.

¶15

The petitioners are working as Lab. Attendants in the different departments of the university. They were appointed pursuant to the selection made in the year 1987. In the year 1991 another selection was made for the posts of Lab. Attendants. It is alleged that promotions have been made by the university to the posts of Lab. Technicians, ignoring the seniority of the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is that promotions have been made on pick and choose basis without fixing seniority to the Lab. Attendants in all the departments of university. Petitioners made representations (Annexures P-3 to P-7) for the redressal of their grievances but no action has been taken thereon till date.

¶16

CWP. No. 14412 of 2010

¶17

-2-

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would be satisfied, if, respondents are directed to take decision on the representations made by the petitioners, referred to above.

¶19

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents take decision on the representations made by the petitioners, within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the competent authority. Needless to say that in the event the claim of the petitioners is to be rejected, the same shall be by a reasoned and speaking order.

¶20

(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE

¶21

20.8.2010. lucky

Hari Krishan and Ors. v. Maharishi Dayandand Uni., Rohtak and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Krishan and Ors. v. Maharishi Dayandand Uni., Rohtak and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harvinder Kaur Vs HUDA and Ors.

Devki Sharma Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Chandi Ram Gupta Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Amar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Vazir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Dharam Dass Falwaria (Died) through Lr'S Satinder Kumar Vs State of Hry. and Ors.