Dismissed

Umesh Chand v. Semi Conductor Laboratory (Deptt. of Space Government of India) and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Nov 2013CWP/25629/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dismissing his application for promotion eligibility due to pending punishments. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings based on undisputed facts, dismissing the petition on both merits and grounds of delay and laches.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on merits and on the ground of delay and laches.

Umesh Chand Vs Semi Conductor… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No. 25629 of 2013

¶3

Date of decision: November 22, 2013

Umesh Chand

... Petitioner

Vs.

Semi Conductor Laboratory and others

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶10

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Present: Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, Advocate for Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

Surya Kant, J (Oral)

¶15

The petitioner impugns the order dated 20.9.2013 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, whereby his Original Application has been disposed of with a direction to respondents to consider his eligibility for promotion as per law and rules and hold the DPC meeting accordingly.

¶16

The claim of the petitioner to consider him for promotion with effect from the date his juniors were promoted has been, however, declined by the Tribunal observing that such promotion took place during the currency of major punishment of stoppage of increments as well as another minor punishment of warning imposed upon the petitioner. The Tribunal's finding, as a matter of fact, is that on the basis of over all service record, the petitioner was not found eligible to be considered for promotion.

¶17

Deepak Kumar 2014.01.10 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document which has been signed by the Hon'ble Bench High Court, Chandigarh

¶18

Civil Writ Petition No. 25629 of 2013

¶19

-2-

¶20

As the facts are not disputed, we find no error in the view taken by the Tribunal. That apart, we are also of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The Tribunal passed the order on 20.9.2010 which the petitioner has chosen to challenge after three years. There is no explanation in the writ petition as to what were the circumstances which prevented him to approach this Court within a reasonable period.

¶21

For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this petition and dismiss the same on merits as well as on the ground of delay and laches.

¶22

(Surya Kant) Judge

¶23

November 22, 2013 (Surinder Gupta) deepak Judge

¶24

Deepak Kumar 2014.01.10 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document which has been signed by the Hon'ble Bench High Court, Chandigarh

Umesh Chand v. Semi Conductor Laboratory (Deptt. of Space Government of India) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Chand v. Semi Conductor Laboratory (Deptt. of Space Government of India) 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

Ranjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rajinder Singh & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Gurbhej Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Kanwal Singh etc. Vs State of Haryana etc.

Balbir Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Post Graduate Institute of Medical Edu. & Research & Ors. Vs Central Administrative Tribunal Chd & Ors.