Partly allowed

Anil and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Feb 2011CWP/13248/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging denial of appointment challenged delay allowing lower merit personnel advancement. Court granted notional promotion to all petitioners except No.6 without pecuniary benefit.

What did the court decide?

Notional promotion granted petitioners Nos. 1-5 and 7-9 from date lower merit appointments made, without pecuniary benefit. Petition regarding petitioner No. 6 dismissed.

Anil and Ors. Vs State of Haryana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

C.W.P. No.13248 of 2010 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

C.W.P. No.13248 of 2010(O&M) DATE OF DECISION :

Anil and others

PETITIONERS

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others

¶8

RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present:Shri R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Shri Vishal Malik, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Shri Harish Rathee, Senior D.A.G. Haryana.

¶12

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶13

C.M. No.2524 of 2011 is allowed. Additional affidavit of petitioner

¶14

No.6 is taken on record.

¶15

Reply has been filed in Court today. Copy of the same has been supplied to the counsel opposite. Reply is taken on record.

¶16

It is not disputed that the petitioners were denied the appointment which compelled them to come to this Court by filing the instant petition.

¶17

C.W.P. No.13248 of 2010

¶18

The respondents have since given appointment to the petitioners except petitioner No.6.

¶19

The limited grievance of the petitioners which is being agitated is that the persons who are lower in merit, have been promoted and the appointment now offered to them from a subsequent date is likely to affect their career throughout their service period.

¶20

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the grievance of the petitioners is not misplaced. They were deprived of the appointment without any justifiable reason and because of this reason , the persons who are lower in merit, have stolen a march over them.

¶21

Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met, if the petitioners (except petitioner No.6) are granted notional promotion from the date when the persons lower in merit have been granted the same benefit, without however, any pecuniary benefit.

¶22

The writ petition qua petitioner Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 9 is disposed of

¶23

as such.

¶24

In so far as petitioner No.6 is concerned, it has been stated that she is placed at Sr.No.173 in the waiting list.

¶25

Having regard to the aforesaid, the instant petition qua petitioner No.6 is dismissed with a liberty to her to agitate any grievance, which may survive qua her.

¶26

Disposed of.

¶27

February 17, 2011 GD

¶28

(MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE

¶29

WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO

Anil and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil and Ors. 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

Rupinder Bansal Vs Surinder Singh Gill and Anr.

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Manjeet Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Triveni Infrastructure etc. Vs Baij Nath Goel

Sukhbeer Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Suneet Goyat Vs State of Haryana & Ors.