Disposed

Sanjeev Anand v. U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Feb 2012CWP/3545/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice K. Kannan disposed of a writ petition by an advocate, holding the petitioner was not an aggrieved person against a non-dismissal order relieving him of specific duties due to temperament. The court directed salary payment and allowed future approach for procedural violations.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is entitled to salary. Liberty to approach the Court for violation of the direction if passed without notice.

Sanjeev Anand Vs U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. and Others — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C.W.P. No.3545 of 2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P. No.3545 of 2012

¶5

Date of Decision.25.02.2012

¶6

Sh. Sanjeev Anand s/o Sh. Subash Chand Anand .....Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others .....Respondents

¶9

Present: Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶11

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

¶14

-.-

¶15

K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)

¶16

The petitioner has a grievance that the person, who has passed the order relieving him, is not the appointing authority or competent authority to do so. I would notice from the order that there is no order passed dismissing him from service. On the other hand, it is only stated by the person who has passed the order that his interface with public has been acrimonious and he shall not be allowed to function in that post and that, therefore, he was being relieved of the duty which has been assigned to him. At the tale end of the order, it is stated that appropriate departmental action would be taken against the petitioner.

¶17

This order must only be understood that the person, who is his immediate superior was not willing to entrust any particular work to him where it involves interaction with the public having regard to his temperament. It is also suggested in the order that departmental action may be taken against him. It is not a stage where the petitioner's

¶18

-2-

¶19

C.W.P. No.3545 of 2012

¶20

rights are taken in any way and he cannot be taken to be an aggrieved person.

¶21

The petitioner's grievance is that he has not been paid the salary. It is clarified that he shall be entitled to salary and he cannot be denied from the same unless rules permit such a procedure. The petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court for any violation of this direction, even

¶22

though it is passed without serving notice to the respondents.

¶23

The writ petition is disposed of as procedure.

¶24

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶25

February 25, 2012 Pankaj*

Sanjeev Anand v. U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Anand v. U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. and Others

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

Mukandi Lal Singla Vs United Commercial Bank and Anr.

Rakesh Arora Vs State of Punjab

Tarsem Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Kuldip Singh Vs Food Corporation of India and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Bakshi Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Rameshwar Lal Arora Vs Panjab University, Chd.