Dismissed

Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Oct 2021CWP/9486/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this CWP, the petitioner challenged the regularization date of 2007, claiming parity with a junior regularized later due to the junior's prior reinstatement. The court dismissed the petition as no grounds existed for interference given the petitioner's acquiescence and the inordinate delay in seeking the benefit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed.

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

112

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP-9486-2021 Date of Decision: 25.10.2021

¶4

DINESH KUMAR

¶5

…Petitioner Versus

¶6

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

¶7

…Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶9

Present : Mr. Anil Kumar Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

¶11

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

Grievance of the petitioner herein is qua regularization of his services w.e.f. 14.02.2000 instead of 01.03.1997, the administrative order qua which was passed way back in the year, 2007. The claim of the petitioner to seek regularization w.e.f. 1997 is ostensibly on the ground that similarly situated another employee, who was also initially appointed as Conductor along with petitioner in the year 1993 on contract basis and who too was terminated sometime in the year, 1999 albeit reinstated by virtue of Labour Court award, was regularized by giving the benefit of continuity of service, while the petitioner has been denied the similar benefit. The petitioner claims that owing to the denial of continuity of service, the similarly situated another employee i.e. Ramesh Kumar, who is otherwise junior to him in service, has been regularized w.e.f. the date prior to the regularization of the petitioner.

¶13

VANDANA 2021.10.25 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

Having heard the arguments, no grounds to interfere are made

¶15

out.

¶16

While the grievance of the petitioner qua his junior having been given a date of regularization prior to that of him may be genuine, however, the petitioner having acquiesced to date of his regularization, which was fixed and known to him way back in the year 2007, cannot, at this stage, reopen the case merely because the junior, who had been pursuing his cause throughout by way of pending proceedings in the Court, which eventually were decided in his favour by virtue of CWP-16027-2005, which too was decided way back in the year 2006, and in any case, does not, in any manner, improve the case of the petitioner qua the inordinate delay attributable to him in seeking the similar benefit. Ostensibly, the petitioner submitted certain representations in the year 2007 seeking parity with his junior, does not further his cause to seek any indulgence by this Court at this belated stage. On that ground alone, no grounds to interfere are made out.

¶17

Dismissed.

¶18

October 25 , 2021 (ARUN MONGA) gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶19

VANDANA 2021.10.25 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar 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

Anil Kumar Mehta Vs State of Haryana etc.

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Anr. Vs Raj Pal Khanna

Kuldeep Singh Vs Tej Kaur

Naveen Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Virender Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sunder Lal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.