Held the issue of discrimination regarding service extension beyond retirement was academic as the State government withdrew the policy-decision, rendering it no longer subsistent. The writ petition was dismissed.
The writ petition was dismissed as the issue became academic following the withdrawal of the policy-decision.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.7647 of 2015 Date of Decision: July 07, 2015
Shiv Kumar Yadav and others
.....Petitioners
versus
The State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI.
Present: Mr.S.N.Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioners.
-.-
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
In view of the fact that the State Government has already withdrawn the policy-decision on granting extension in service beyond the age of retirement and that policy-decision has since been upheld by this Court, the perceived discrimination alleged by the petitioners between them and those to whom such extension/promotion were earlier granted, no longer subsists. This would render the issue raised in this case totally academic which need not be gone into at this stage.
Dismissed.
[SURYA KANT]
July 07, 2015 [P.B.BAJANTHRI] mohinder JUDGE
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.07.10 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the alleged discrimination regarding extension of service beyond retirement age still subsists given the withdrawal of the policy?
Shiv Kumar Yadav and others
The State of Haryana and others
Surya Kant
P.B.Bajanthri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
