Disposed

Khushi Ram v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Dec 2021CWP/26507/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ mandamus to prevent replacement after being denied duty post-appendix surgery. Court treated petition as representation and allowed reinstation subject to official report and post requirements within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Directed authorities to allow petitioner to join services within 30 days subject to verification of medical records and requirement of services on the post.

Khushi Ram Vs State of Haryana and Others — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

Sr. No.121

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No.26507-2021 Date of decision: 23.12.2021

¶4

Khushi Ram …Petitioner Vs.

¶5

State of Haryana and others …Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶7

Present : Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.

¶9

¶10

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

Petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to replace him with another set of contractual employee.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed as Sweeper in the year 2012. Since then, he has been working with respondent-department diligently. On 14.11.2021, petitioner was diagnosed with Appendix emergency and he had to admit at PGIMER, Chandigarh for surgery. He was discharged from hospital on 21.11.2021. Petitioner was advised bed rest for 20 days. Accordingly, on 22.11.2021 he applied for leave. On 13.12.2021, when the petitioner went to join on duty, he was not allowed to do so. Hence, the instant petition.

¶13

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the

¶14

case file.

¶15

There is no formal order of dispensing with the services of the petitioner by the competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on a

¶16

Court query as to how the petition is maintainable, submits that despite the MAHAVIR SINGH 2021.12.25 06:50 I attest to the accuracy of this order

¶17

petitioner having worked for more than 09 years, when he reported for work after his surgery, he was not allowed to join duty. Petitioner could report for work earlier since he was earlier bedridden for 28 days, having undergone a major surgery at PGIMER, Chandigarh for perforated Appendix. He submits that petitioner had though intimated the authorities of his sickness and his impending surgery before proceeding on leave, and yet he is being denied to join duties on the post.

¶18

Learned State counsel, on advance service, appears and submits that per his instructions that there is no adverse order passed qua the petitioner with regard to dispensation of his services and the writ petition has been filed prematurely.

¶19

Be that as it may, let this petition be treated as a representation by the competent authority and upon verification of the sickness of the petitioner,and on being produced relevant medical record, he will be allowed to join services subject, of course, to the requirement of services on the post, which was being handled by the petitioner prior to his proceeding on sick leave.

¶20

Let the needful be done within a period of 30 days from today.

¶21

Disposed of accordingly.

¶22

(ARUN MONGA) December 23, 2021 JUDGE Vandana Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶23

MAHAVIR SINGH 2021.12.25 06:50 I attest to the accuracy of this order

Khushi Ram v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khushi Ram 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumari Vs State of Haryana and Others

Shakti Vs Parwati

Pritam Singh Vs Ranvir Singh

Gurdeep Singh Kalyan Vs State of Haryana and Others

Harpal Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Bhagwan Dass Vs Neelam Devi