Dismissed

Jagdish Chander and Ors. v. State of Haryana Andors.

Punjab & Haryana HC31 May 2013CWP/6020/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by conductors of Haryana Roadways seeking ante-dated regularization. Court found petitioners guilty of deliberate concealment of material facts regarding prior dismissed writ petitions and a speaking order rejecting their claim. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited with Haryana State Legal Services Authority.

Jagdish Chander and Ors. Vs State of Haryana… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No. 6020 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 6020 of 2013

¶5

Date of decision:31.05.2013

¶6

Jagdish Chander & others

¶7

...... Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State of Haryana & others

¶10

...... Respondents

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

¶12

Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.

¶14

The petitioners who are working as Conductors with the Haryana Roadways have filed the instant writ petition impugning the orders of even date i.e. 28.12.2012 at Annexure P-7 and Annexure P-8 respectively, whereby their claim for ante dated regularization has been rejected.

¶15

A perusal of the impugned orders at Annexures P-7 & P-8, which were couched in identical language would disclose that the petitioners had earlier filed CWP No. 6375 of 2002 before this Court, which had been disposed of on 24.04.2002 in terms of issuing directions to the respondent-authorities to decide the legal notice. In pursuance to such orders dated 24.04.2002, speaking orders dated 22.08.2002 had been issued, declining the claim of the petitioners seeking benefit of ante dated regularization in service. Apparently, the

¶16

CWP No. 6020 of 2013

¶17

-2-

¶18

petitioners yet again filed CWP No. 17593 of 2012 in this Court, claiming the same very benefit, whereby this Court had disposed of the petition on 07.09.2012 to yet again decide their representation. In pursuance to the directions issued on 07.09.2012 the impugned orders in the present writ petition at Annexures P-7 & P-8 have been passed.

¶19

During the course of hearing on 20.05.2013, the Registry was directed to tag along the case file of CWP No. 6375 of 2002 and the hearing was deferred to 24.05.2013.

¶20

A perusal of the case file of CWP No. 6375 of 2002 titled as Rajesh & others Vs. State of Haryana & others would reveal that the present petitioners were petitioners No. 2, 3 & 5 in CWP No. 6375 of 2002. In that writ petition also, identical relief i.e. benefit of ante dated regularization in service had been sought. The writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 24.04.2002 directing the respondent-authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of a legal notice dated 08.01.2002 having already been served. In pursuance to the directions of the Division Bench, a speaking order dated 22.08.2002 was passed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Faridabad, whereby the claim of the present petitioners as also others, had been rejected.

¶21

The order dated 22.08.2002 has never been assailed by the present petitioners. That apart, while filing the second writ petition i.e. CWP No. 17593 of 2012 titled as Ram Niwas & others Vs. State of Haryana & others, the mention as regards an order dated 22.08.2002,

¶22

-3-

¶23

CWP No. 6020 of 2013

¶24

whereby their claim already stands rejected, was not even made. As such, directions were procured from this Court on 07.09.2012 to decide their representation for the same very relief yet again by concealing and withholding an order that already stood passed.

¶25

Even in the instant writ petition, there is no mention as regards the petitioners having raised the same very claim earlier in point of time by filing CWP No. 6375 of 2002 as also as regards a speaking order dated 22.08.2002 having already been passed as regards rejection of their claim. Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners on being confronted with such factual position concedes to the same.

¶26

The petitioners in the light of the facts noticed hereinabove, are guilty of deliberate concealment of material facts as also of misleading this Court. The petitioners as such by their conduct have made themselves ineligible for grant of any benefit from writ Court.

¶27

The present writ petition, accordingly, is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited within a period of two weeks with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority.

¶28

31^st May, 2013 harjeet

¶29

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE

Jagdish Chander and Ors. v. State of Haryana Andors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Chander and Ors. v. State of Haryana Andors.

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

Harbans Kaur and Ors. Vs Dari Ram and Anr.

Gram Panchyat Sukhi Majara Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rishpal Singh and Anr. Vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana and Anr.

Sushil Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Prem Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.