Partly allowed

Sudhir Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Oct 2011LPA/1583/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows an application and modifies a Single Judge's order disposing of a writ petition as infructuous. The High Court directed the respondents to consider and decide served legal notices within three months via a reasoned order, as the Single Judge overlooked this specific prayer.

What did the court decide?

The Single Judge's order is modified. The respondents are directed to consider the legal notices served by the appellant and dispose of them within three months by passing a reasoned and speaking orde

Sudhir Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.M. No.4309-LPA of 2011 & LPA No. 1583 of 2011 Date of Decision: 12.10.2011.

Dr. Sudhir Kumar

--Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana & others

¶7

--Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

¶10

Present:Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

¶12

¶13

PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL)

¶14

C.M. No. 4309-LPA of 2011

¶15

Notice of the C.M. Application to the counsel opposite.

¶16

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

¶17

notice on behalf of respondents.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

For the reasons recorded in the application, same is allowed. Delay in filing the L.P.A is condoned.

¶20

LPA No. 1583 of 2011

¶21

This L.P.A is directed against the order dated 9.11.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.P. No. 14127 of 2010. The appellant herein filed the writ petition claiming following reliefs:-

¶22

“(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus

¶23

directing the respondent to release the salary from August, 2009 to onwards with interest @ 12% and further direction be given to the

¶24

LPA No. 1583 of 2011

¶25

-2-

¶26

respondent to accept the Agreement Bond attached as Annexure P-9 for training (MPH of 2 years duration) of the petitioner.

¶27

(ii) Further prayer the direction be given to the respondents to decide the legal notice dated 12.07.2010 and 14.07-10 attached as Annexure P-7 and Annexure P-8 and direction be given to the respondent to give all the benefits mentioned in the legal notice attached as Annexure dated 14.-7-10.

¶28

(iii) To dispense with filing of the certified copies of the annexures and advance notices to the respondents.

¶29

(iv) Permission be granted to file the photocopy of the Annexure P-9 dated 01.12.10 as it is.

¶30

(v) Writ petition be allowed with cost.

¶31

(vi) To pass any other order which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper as per the facts and circumstances of the case in the favour of the petitioner.”

¶32

In so far the relief no.1 is concerned the petitioner submitted the bond and his salary was released. Taking into consideration this fact, learned Single Judge disposed of the petition having been rendered infructuous. The grievance of the appellant before us is that he had also made a prayer for a direction to decide his legal notice, wherein he had made certain other claims but the learned Single Judge has not considered the second prayer.

¶33

We have perused the impugned judgement and the prayers made in the writ petition. Definitely, there was a second prayer for a direction to decide the legal notices served by the appellant herein, copies whereof were attached with the writ petition as Annexures P-7 & P-8.

¶34

LPA No. 1583 of 2011

¶35

-3-

¶36

We are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge needs to be modified. Last para of the judgement shall stand substituted as under:-

¶37

The respondents are directed to consider the legal notices (Annexures P-7 & P-8 with the writ petition) served by the petitioner and dispose of the same within a period of three months by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

¶38

Disposed of accordingly.

¶39

(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE

¶40

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE

¶41

12.10.2011. lucky

Sudhir Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Kumar 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

Tirath Ram and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajan Goel Vs J.N.Aggarwal and Ors.

Ritu Rani Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Baljinder Singh Sra Vs the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chd & Ors.

Virender Kumar Kharta & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Administrator, U.T.Chd. and Ors. Vs Sanjeev Kumar and Ors.