The writ petition seeking promotion was dismissed as infructuous after nearly twenty years due to lack of petitioner appearance, presuming the petitioner may have been promoted, subject to revival if a cause of action survives.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.11064 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision:- 10.07.2013
Munshi Ram
...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana and
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Sourabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.(Oral)
Learned counsel for the state has submitted that the petitioner has prayed for writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as per his seniority and eligibiity.
The writ petition was admitted on 08.02.1993. Almost 20 years have passed, thereafter. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner might have been promoted that is why, no body has put in appearance to argue the case and the writ petition has, thus, rendered infructuous.
Apparently, it appears to be so, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous with a rider that in case any cause of action survives, the petitioner may file an application to get it revived.
July 10, 2013 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) Jyoti 1 JUDGE
Munshi Ram
The State of Haryana
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
