The High Court, Punjab and Haryana dismissed the writ petition as infructuous after the State Council of Ministers withdrew previous termination orders and restored the appointments of the panacheyt secretaries involved.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No.6660 of 2009 (O&M).doc
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.6660 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.02.2010
Surjit Singh . . . . Petitioner
VS.
State of Punjab and Others . . . . . Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. R.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab
Mr. Arun Abrol, Advocate for respondent No.252
Mr. Vikram Bali, Advocate for respondent No.462
SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)
(1). In this Civil Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 27.02.2009 (Annexure P11), whereby, services of 787 Panchayat Secretaries, appointed on contractual basis on a consolidated salary, were ordered to be regularized. The operation of the aforesaid order was stayed by this Court.
CWP No.6660 of 2009 (O&M).doc
(2). During the pendency of this writ petition, it is stated by learned State counsel as well as learned counsel representing the other contesting respondents that the Council of Ministers, State of Punjab have taken a decision on 2nd March, 2009, whereby, the initial orders dated 10.12.2002 itself, whereby, services of 909 Panchayat Secretaries (including 787 Panchayat Secretaries in question) were terminated, has been withdrawn and their original appointments have been restored.
(3).
It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that by virtue of the above-mentioned later decision, the impugned order dated 27.02.2009 has now become redundant and inoperative.
(4).
The writ petition, thus, having become infructuous, is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to institute a fresh writ petition challenging the above mentioned subsequent decision, if so advised, desired.
(5).
The respondents may raise their preliminary objections as well as other pleas taken in this case, in the fresh case also, if the occasion arises.
CWP No.6660 of 2009 (O&M).doc
(SURYA KANT) JUDGE
19.02.2010
vishal shonkar
Surjit Singh
State of Punjab
SURYA KANT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
