Disposed

Sanjit Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 May 2014CWP/10292/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a differently abled person with 45% disability, challenged non-allotment of a reserved plot where authorities demanded 70% disability. Court directed respondent authorities to consider the final order dated 22.05.2013 and pass a speaking order within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to take cognizance of the claim under the order dated 22.05.2013 and pass a speaking order within three months.

Sanjit Kumar Vs State of Haryana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.10292 of 2014 Date of Decision: May 26, 2014

Sanjit Kumar

.....Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL.

¶9

Present : Mr.Harish Nain, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

-.-

¶11

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

¶15

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶16

The grievance of the petitioner is that he is a differently abled person with more than 45% disability and notwithstanding reservation of plots meant for that special category, the respondent-authorities are not allotting him the plot in terms of the order dated 22.05.2013 (Annexure P-8) passed by the State Commissioner for the persons with disabilities, on the ground that disability should be more than 70%.

¶17

The above-stated claim has been raised by the petitioner vide legal notice dated 01.03.2014 (Annexure P10) also. It is further contended that the order dated 22.05.2013 has attained finality as it was never challenged by the respondent-authorities in any Court.

¶18

In this view of the matter and having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent Nos.2 & 3 to take cognizance of the above-mentioned claim in the light of the

¶19

Kumar Mohinder 2014.07.09 12:07 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶20

CWP No.10292 of 2014 [2] order dated 22.05.2013 (Annexure P-8) and pass an appropriate speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶21

Ordered accordingly.

¶22

Dasti.

¶23

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE May 26, 2014 [LISA GILL] Mohinder JUDGE

¶24

Kumar Mohinder 2014.07.09 12:07 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

Sanjit Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjit Kumar v. State of Haryana & 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

The Shree Sanatan Dharam Sabha Vs State of Hy.

Tarlochan Singh & Ors. Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Chandawali Pipe Industries Vs State of Hry. and Ors.

Sunita Devi Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Sudesh Goyal Vs Ut Chandigarh Administration & Ors.