Allowed

Ashwani Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Jan 2011CWP/16663/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, directing respondents to consider petitioners for promotion to the post of Clerk based on the Group C and Group D Employees Rules, 1998, and a previous Division Bench judgment. The court imposed costs on the State for delay.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider and promote petitioners to the post of Clerk with consequential benefits; costs of Rs. 25,000 imposed on respondents.

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

¶1

CWP No. 16663 of 2009(O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No. 16663 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : 17-01-2011

¶4

Ashwani Kumar and others

¶5

....Petitioners

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Haryana and another

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present:Mr. Satish Chaudhary, Advocate for petitioners

¶11

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana

¶12

MAHESH GROVER, J

¶13

The instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider them for promotion to the post of Clerk in view of promotion of Group C and Group D Employees Rules, 1998.

¶14

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No. 7241 of 2007 decided on 14.1.2008 in which while considering the prayer of a similarly situated person Asgar Khan this Court observed as follows:-

¶15

“In view of the facts mentioned above, we allow this writ petition and set aside the order dated 2.3.2007 (Annexure P-3) and direct the respondents/competent authority to consider and promote the petitioner to the post of Clerk w.e.f the date he was entitled in accordance with the aforesaid Rules, with all consequential benefits, if any. Needful be done within

¶16

CWP No. 16663 of 2009(O&M) 2

¶17

a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”

¶18

Upon notice of motion having been issued, the respondents have controverted the contentions which have been raised in the petition as also before this Court by filing a reply by way of an affidavit of Sh.O.P.Bajaj, Assistant Director, ME, office of Director Secondary Education, Haryana dated 19.7.2010. After considering the same, this Court on 3.8.2010 noticed the argument which was raised by the learned counsel for the State who had stated before this Court that against the Division Bench judgment (Annexure P-4) upon which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, State of Haryana has preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter is under consideration.

¶19

This Court however was not enamoured of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the State in view of the fact that there was no restraint order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said SLP. The respondents were thus directed to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Clerk in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP 7241 of 2007 referred to above.

¶20

An affidavit has now been filed by Sh.O.P.Bajaj the very same official who had filed the affidavit dated 19.7.2010 on 17.9.2010 and in this affidavit he has categorically stated that the case of the petitioners is similar to that of Asgar Khan and that the petitioner in CWP No. 7241 of 2007 was promoted subject to the outcome of the SLP preferred by the respondentState which SLP has since been disposed of on 25.11.2008.

¶21

It is thus not disputed that the SLP against the Division Bench

¶22

CWP No. 16663 of 2009(O&M) 3

¶23

judgment of this Court stands decided with no deviation from the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court. There is also no dispute that the case of the petitioners is akin to Asgar Khan whose case was decided by virtue of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench. There is thus no explanation as to why the cases of the petitioner have not been considered despite the aforesaid facts.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondents has merely tried to raise obstructive contentions without any cogent and inspiring explanation for not considering the cases of the petitioners despite the directions given by this Court on 3.8.2010 and despite the fact that concededly the case of the petitioners is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court which stands affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶25

The instant writ petition is thus allowed in the same terms as observed in Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No.7241 of 2007 decided on 14.1.2008.

¶26

For the reluctance of the respondents in not disposing of the case of the petitioners despite the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, finding an expression of affirmation in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and forcing the Court to waste time on unnecessary exercise, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by imposing costs of Rs.25,000/- on the respondents-State. The costs shall be deposited before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and a report to this effect shall be placed on the file of this case.

¶27

(Mahesh Grover) Judge

¶28

January 17, 2011 rekha

Ashwani Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwani Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Renu & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Krishan Chand Vs Union of India & Ors.

Jagmal Singh Vs Presiding Officer and Anr.

Ranjit Kumar etc. Vs State of Haryana etc.

Mool Chand Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mahinder Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.