Disposed

Madan Lal v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Feb 2010CWP/2631/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This condonation petition regarding seniority adjustment and fixation for a public health clerk was disposed of at the motion stage. The court directed respondent no.2 to decide the petitioner's legal notice on adjustment within three months, mandating a reasoned order if the claim is rejected.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2 to take decision on the legal notice served by the petitioner within three months; subsequent order must be reasoned and speaking.

Madan Lal Vs State of Haryana and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP. No. 2631 of 2010 Date of Decision: 16.2.2010.

¶3

Madan Lal --Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Haryana and others --Respondents

¶6

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

¶7

Present:Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶8

¶9

PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL)

¶10

Notice of motion to respondents no.1 and 2 only.

¶11

Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana has been asked to accept

¶12

notice on behalf of respondents-State.

¶13

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.

¶14

The petitioner is working as Clerk having been promotd on 8.4.1991 in the office of Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Panchkula. He was transferred to Public Health Engineering Department on 1.5.1998. Since then he is working in the said department. The petitioner made a number of representations seeking his adjustment in the Head Office and fixation of seniority accordingly. It is alleged that private respondents were appointed as Clerks later than the petitioner and they have been adjusted in the Head Office, whereas the petitioner, who is working since 1998 has not been adjusted. Apart from the various representations, petitioner has also served a legal notice (Annexure P-7) but no decision has been taken thereon till date.

¶15

CWP. No. 2631 of 2010

¶16

-2-

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, if, respondents are directed to take decision on the legal notice served by the petitioner.

¶18

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 to take decision on the legal notice served by the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the said respondent. Needless to say that in the event the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, the same shall be by a reasoned and speaking order.

¶19

(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE

¶20

16.2.2010. lucky

Madan Lal v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Lal v. State of Haryana 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

Manjit Kaur & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Bharat Mitter (Died) Represented through Lr'S Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Bijender Singh Vs State of Haryana etc.

(O&M)Navodaya Vidayala Samiti Vs Shamsher Singh etc.

Sonam Mittal and Ors. Vs M D Uni

Jai Singh Vs State of Hry. and Ors.