Dismissed

Sher Singh v. Sports Authority of India

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Sept 2013CWP/11204/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment condones a gross delay in restoring CWP No.11204 of 1992 and C.M. Nos.13804-05 of 2013 regarding a regularization claim. However, the court dismissed the underlying writ petition for appointment to the post of Chowkidar as the prayer was stale due to the 21-year lapse, allowing no substantive amendment or reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

The application for restoration and condonation of delay is allowed. The underlying writ petition for appointment is dismissed as stale.

Sher Singh Vs Sports Authority of India — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No.11204 of 1992

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.M. Nos.13804-05 of 2013 and CWP No.11204 of 1992 Date of decision:-25.09.2013

Sher Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Sports Authority of India and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶11

Present:Mr. P.K. Chugh, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.

¶12

K. KANNAN J.(Oral)

¶13

C.M. No.13805 of 2013

¶14

For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed and the delay of 498 days in filing the application for restoration of the writ petition is allowed and the delay of 498 days in filing the said application is condoned.

¶15

C.M. No.13804 of 2013

¶16

Application is allowed and the writ petition is taken up for

¶17

hearing.

¶18

CWP No.11204 of 1992

¶19

In terms of the policy for regularization, the petitioner, who

¶20

Asija Vijay 2013.10.03 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh

¶21

CWP No.11204 of 1992

¶22

-2-

¶23

was working as Chowkidar, was found fit and respondent had called for sponsorship from the Employment Officer, Kurukshetra vide its letter dated 11.6.1992. The sponsorship did not come through and the writ petition had been filed for a direction to send the sponsorship and for quashing the termination effected, when he did not secure the sponsorship. The respondent could not have acted differently by providing appointment to a person, who was not sponsored through Employment Exchange. When the writ petition was filed, the Court ordered the notice and had directed that any appointment will be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The case has not been brought for hearing all these years. After its dismissal on earlier occasion for default, it has been restored after the application was moved. The relief for appointment to the post of Chowkidar, which was recommended in the year 1992 cannot survive favourable consideration at this length of time. The prayer has become stale and it is dismissed.

¶24

September 25, 2013 ( K. KANNAN ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

¶25

Asija Vijay 2013.10.03 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh

Sher Singh v. Sports Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sher Singh v. Sports Authority of India

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

Madho Ram Vs Harmohinder Singh

Kuldeep Singh Vs Jabru Singh and Others

Gyam Masik Vs State of Haryana

Narender Singh Vs M/S Sohan Lal & Co.

Surjit Singh Vs Teja Singh and Ors.

Mangat Ram Vs Ram Rattan