This intra-court appeal against a single Judge's order dismissing a writ petition regarding delayed promotion. The High Court found no infirmity in the lower order, relying on Supreme Court precedents on delay, and dismissed the appeal.
The appeal was found devoid of merits and was dismissed.
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.
I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH
LPA No. 914 of 2019 ( O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 29. 05. 2019
Randhi r Si ngh
…. . Appel l ant
ver sus
St at e of Har yana and anot her
. . . . . Respondent s
CORAM: - HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE KRI SHNA MURARI , CHI EF JUSTI CE HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE ARUN PALLI , JUDGE
Pr esent : Shr i N. C. Ki nr a, Advocat e f or t he appel l ant
KRI SHNA MURARI , CHI EF JUSTI CE : ( Or al )
Del ay of 184 days i n f i l i ng t he appeal i s condoned f or t he r easons st at ed i n CM- 2185- LPA- 2019 and t he same st ands di sposed of .
LPA- 914- 2019:
Thi s i nt r a- Cour t appeal under cl ause- X of t he Let t er s Pat ent i s di r ect ed agai nst t he j udgment and or der dat ed 10. 07. 2018 passed by l ear ned si ngl e Judge di smi ssi ng t he wr i t pet i t i on f i l ed by t he appel l ant her ei n on t he gr ound of del ay and l aches.
Admi t t edl y, t he appel l ant her ei n appr oached t hi s cour t by f i l i ng a wr i t pet i t i on i n t he year 2018 cl ai mi ng pr omot i on t o t he post of Sub- Di vi si onal Of f i cer wi t h r et r ospect i ve ef f ect f r om December 23, 2005, when, he al l eges, per sons j uni or t o hi m had been pr omot ed. He r et i r ed f r om ser vi ce on 30. 04. 2012 and, af t er f i ve year s of hi s
PARKASH CHAND 2019.05.30 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
LPA- 914- 2019
- 2 -
super annuat i on, f or t he f i r st t i me made a r epr esent at i on on 16. 08. 2017 st aki ng hi s cl ai m bef or e t he aut hor i t i es and when no deci si on was t aken f i l ed t he wr i t pet i t i on.
The l ear ned si ngl e Judge di smi ssed t he wr i t pet i t i on on t he gr ound of del ay and l aches. We do not f i nd any i nf i r mi t y i n t he j udgment of t he l ear ned si ngl e Judge whi ch may r equi r e any i nt er f er ence i n t hi s i nt r a- Cour t appeal . The l ear ned si ngl e Judge, whi l e non- sui t i ng t he appel l ant , has pl aced r el i ance upon t he j udgment s of t he Hon’ bl e Apex Cour t i n t he case of P. S. Sadasi vaswami vs. St at e of Tami l Nadu, ( 1975) 1 SCC 152, St at e of Ut t r anchal vs. Shi v Char an Si ngh Bhandr i , ( 2013) 12 SCC 179 , Vi j ay Kumar Kaul vs. Uni on of I ndi a , ( 2012) 7 SCC 610 and Gul am Rasool Lone vs. St at e of J&K, ( 2009) 15 SCC 321 .
The Hon’ bl e Apex Cour t , i n t he af or esai d cases, has hel d t hat unl ess a l i t i gant appr oaches t he Cour t expedi t i ousl y f or t he r el i ef , t he cour t s shoul d r ef use t o exer ci se t hei r ext r a- or di nar y power s under Ar t i cl e 226 of t he Const i t ut i on of I ndi a. I n t he case of P. S. Sadasi vaswami vs. St at e of Tami l Nadu ( supr a) , t he Hon’ bl e Apex Cour t , whi l e consi der i ng an i dent i cal si t uat i on as t he one i n t he case at hands, has obser ved t hat a per son aggr i eved by an or der of pr omot i ng a j uni or over hi s head shoul d appr oach t he cour t at l east wi t hi n si x mont hs or at t he most a year of such pr omot i on and no r el i ef i s l i abl e t o be gr ant ed t o such l i t i gant s who st and by and al l ow t hi ngs t o happen and t hen appr oach t he Cour t t o put f or war d st al e cl ai ms and t r y t o unset t l e t he set t l ed mat t er s.
PARKASH CHAND 2019.05.30 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
LPA- 914- 2019
- 3 -
I n vi ew of t he above, si nce no i nf i r mi t y i s r ef l ect ed f r om t he i mpugned or der passed by t he l ear ned si ngl e Judge, t her e i s no scope f or i nt er f er ence.
The appeal i s devoi d of any mer i t s and, accor di ngl y, st ands di smi ssed.
( KRI SHNA MURARI ) CHI EF JUSTI CE
( ARUN PALLI ) JUDGE
par kash
NOTE: Whet her speaki ng/ non- speaki ng: Speaki ng Whet her r epor t abl e: YES/ NO
PARKASH CHAND 2019.05.30 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the single Judge was correct in dismissing the writ petition on grounds of delay and laches.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. S. Sadasiivaswami vs. State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶19
P. S. Sadasiivaswami vs. State of Tamil Nadu, ( 1975) 1 SCC 152 · Who else cites this
State of Uttaranchal vs. Shiv Charan Singh BhandariRelied on¶19
State of Uttaranchal vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, ( 2013) 12 SCC 179 · Who else cites this
Vijay Kumar Kaul vs. Union of IndiaRelied on¶19
Vijay Kumar Kaul vs. Union of India, ( 2012) 7 SCC 610 · Who else cites this
Gulam Rasool Lone vs. State of J&KRelied on¶19
Gulam Rasool Lone vs. State of J&K, ( 2009) 15 SCC 321 · Who else cites this
Randhir Singh
State of Haryana
Krishna Murari
Arun Palli
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
