Disposed
Union of India v. Kulbhushan Goyal and Anr.
Punjab & Haryana HCCWP/1195/2007
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND…
What the court decided
AI extract
of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND…
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.
[1]
CWP No.1195-CAT of 2007
... Respondents
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.1195-CAT of 2007 Date of Decision: 12.03.2014
Union of India
... Petitioner
Versus
Kulbhushan Goyal and another
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Mr. K.B. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioner/Union of India submits that qua the issue of consideration of respondent No.1 for promotion, the prayer was rejected by confining the admission on 23.07.2007 to the other issue and the endeavour of the petitioner to assail this order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.CC 1357 of 2008 failed as the SLP was dismissed on 04.02.2008. Qua the second issue of backwages, the petition was admitted and interim orders were granted on 23.07.2007.
Rajan Kumar 2014.03.13 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
[2]
CWP No.1195-CAT of 2007
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 states that the said respondent is not pressing the issue of backwages, as respondent No.1 has been given retrospective promotion after reconsideration.
In view of the above, the writ petition has become infructuous and is, accordingly, disposed of.
( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ) CHIEF JUSTICE
( ARUN PALLI ) JUDGE
March 12, 2014 Rajan
Union of India
Kulbhushan Goyal
Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Arun Palli
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court