Single judge execution application filed for enforcement of a High Court order directing jobs to petitioners. The court found that appointment orders were issued and salary paid in October 2013. The application was declared infructuous and disposed of.
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.
Shivani Gupta 2017.07.26 12:03 1
E.A. No. 1 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
E.A. No. 1 of 2013 in CWP No. 9428 of 2006 Date of decision: 24.07.2017
Joginder Singh and others
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Ms. Daljit Kaur, Advocate, for Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)
The present application has been filed for execution of judgment dated 09.03.2010 (Annexure E-1) passed in CWP No. 9428 of 2006, Joginder Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others. The order has been upheld in appeal in LPA No. 1641 of 2010, State of Haryana and others vs. Joginder Singh and others by common judgment dated 05.12.2012 (Annexure E-2).
In the application, notice was issued on 25.03.2013 since it was the case of the petitioners that in spite of the directions issued by the Division Bench, State had not taken action and even a legal notice dated 10.12.2012 (Annexure E-3) had been issued.
In the reply filed by the State, it has been mentioned that the appointment orders have been issued on 21.05.2013 (Annexures R-1 to R-7) and the petitioners have also been paid the salary which is detailed in
E.A. No. 1 of 2013 2
Annexures R-8 to R-14, payments which were deposited in October, 2013. Explanation has also been given as to why the salary could not be paid earlier and there was no deliberate attempt to delay the payment of salary by the respective Drawing and Disbursing Officers.
Keeping in view the above, once the petitioners have been given the necessary appointment orders in pursuance of the orders of the Division Bench and have been paid the salary, the present execution application has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such.
| 24.07.2017 shivani |
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE |
|---|---|
| Whether reasoned/speaking | Yes/No |
| Whether reportable | Yes/No |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present execution application should be allowed given that appointment orders have been issued and salary has been paid.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Joginder Singh
State of Haryana
G.S. Sandhawali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
