Remanded

Seema Rani v. Distt & Sessions Judge & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Feb 2010CWP/18026/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought certiorari to quash promotion of respondent No.2 and No.3 as Stenographers and mandamus for her promotion. Court deferred substantive view on entitlement but directed District & Sessions Judge to consider claim for retrospective promotion within six months and pass a speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the learned District & Sessions Judge, Patiala to consider the petitioner's claim for retrospective promotion as Stenographer Grade-II and dispose of the same by a speaking order within s

Seema Rani Vs Distt & Sessions Judge & Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.18026 of 2009 Date of Decision : February 19, 2010.

Seema Rani

..... Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab and others

¶7

..... Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶9

Present : Mr.Rajesh Bhatheja, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

-.-

¶11

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶16

The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 7.4.2009 (Annexure P-5) whereby respondent Nos.2 & 3 have been promoted as Stenographers Grade-II. The petitioner also seeks a mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider and promote her as Stenographer Grade-II from the date when her above-mentioned juniors, namely, respondent Nos.2 & 3 have been promoted.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has also been now promoted as Stenographer Grade-II w.e.f. 5.2.2010 and she accordingly confines her claim to issue a direction to respondent No.1 to consider her for promotion as Stenographer Grade-II from the date when

¶18

C.W.P.No .18026 of 2009 2

¶19

her juniors (respondent Nos.2 & 3) were promoted.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and keeping in view the nature of relief sought by her, however, without expressing any views on the entitlement of the petitioner for promotion as Stenographer Grade-II w.e.f. the date when her alleged juniors namely S/Sh.Manoj Pahooja and Munish Manchanda (respondent Nos.2 & 3 respectively) were promoted, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the learned District & Sessions Judge, Patiala to consider the claim of the petitioner for retrospective promotion as Stenographer Grade-II from the date when her juniors, namely, respondent Nos.2 & 3 were allegedly promoted and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶21

Ordered accordingly.

¶22

Dasti.

¶23

19-02-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE

Seema Rani v. Distt & Sessions Judge & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema Rani v. Distt & Sessions Judge & 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

Sudesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Om Pal Vs State of Pb. and Ors.

Sukhwinder Vs State of Punjab and Others

Bikram Jeet Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Surjit Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Jugal Kishore Vs State of Punjab and Ors.