Disposed

Rohtash Kumar Bansal & Ors. v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Sept 2018CWP/24056/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Granting a CWP under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, this court directed the respondents to decide grievances raised in a legal notice and take a conscious decision on the petitioners' demand for notional promotion and re-employment within four months.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to take a conscious decision on petitioners' grievances regarding promotion and re-employment within four months.

Rohtash Kumar Bansal & Ors. Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

CWP No.24056 OF 2018

¶2

--1--

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.24056 OF 2018 DECIDED ON: SEPTEMBER 25, 2018

¶5

ROHTASH KUMAR BANSAL AND ORS.

¶6

....PETITIONERS..

¶7

VS.

¶8

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.

¶9

....RESPONDENTS..

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH

¶11

Present:Mr. S.K. Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

¶13

JASPAL SINGH, J.

¶14

Through instant petition, preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have sought issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to notionally promote the petitioners on the post of Executive Engineers w.e.f. 06.08.2014, when DPC has recommended the name of petitioners and the sent the list to government for posting against 22 sanctioned vacant posts of Executive Engineers, with all consequential benefits. And further to reconsider the case of the petitioners for re-employment on the post of Executive Engineers under the instructions dated 06.08.2018 (P-11) as 70 posts of Executive Engineers of Civil Promotional quota are lying vacant with the respondents.

¶15

At the very outset of the arguments, learned counsel for the

¶16

SONIKA petitioners submits that though petitioners moved representation dated 2018.09.26 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

CWP No.24056 OF 2018

¶18

--2--

¶19

25.09.2014 (P-9) to the respondents followed by legal notice dated 25.11.2017 (P-10) but till date neither any response has been received nor any conscious decision has been taken by the respondents.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that petitioners feel satisfied in case direction is issued to respondents to decide legal notice dated 25.11.2017 (P-10), in a time bound manner.

¶21

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, instant petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents to look into the grievances unfolded by the petitioners in legal notice (P-10) and to take a conscious decision, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶22

However, if petitioners still feel aggrieved by any of the orders passed by the concerned authority, they shall be at liberty to have recourse to other remedies available under law including to approach this Court.

¶23

SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 (JASPAL SINGH) sonika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶24

SONIKA 2018.09.26 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Rohtash Kumar Bansal & Ors. v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohtash Kumar Bansal & Ors. v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kusum and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Prem Chand Vs State of Haryana & Others

Hawa Singh Hooda Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Amar Singh Vs Haryana Vidut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.

Hardial Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Kiran Bala Vs State of Punjab and Ors.