Dismissed

Gobind Lal v. State of Hy.Etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Nov 2022CWP/7404/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a 20-year-old writ petition, the Court dismissed the petitioner's application for quashing an order withdrawing increment, noting non-appearance by counsel, inability to locate the petitioner despite expired counsel, and infructuousness due to extreme delay.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to file an appropriate application if any cause of action survives.

Gobind Lal Vs State of Hy.Etc. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2022)

¶1

465

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP- 7404-2002 (O&M) Date of decision:29.11.2022

¶4

Gobind Lal ..Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

State of Haryana and others ..Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶8

Present : None for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana. ***

¶10

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL )

¶11

Petition herein, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside order dated 08.04.2002 (Annexure P-14) passed by respondent No.3 whereby advance increments given to the petitioner on acquiring the qualification of A.M.I.E. were withdrawn.

¶12

Petition was admitted for hearing on 01.05.2003.

¶13

When taken up for final adjudication, none has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. In this context, it is important to note that a specific notice has been issued in the cause list, as well as, on the notice Board of the Court room, stating “ In the category of “To Be Taken UP” Regular matters shown in the daily cause list, if learned counsel still do not appear, it would be an indicator that they are not interested in pursuing the same and the cases shall then be decided regardless of their presence. Learned counsels are, therefore, requested to watch the regular cause list of the Court. ” Notwithstanding none

¶14

appears.

¶15

ASHISH 2022.12.01 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CWP- 7404-2002 (O&M)

¶17

-2-

¶18

Since the counsel who had filed the petition has since expired during pendency of the writ petition, fresh notice was issued to the petitioner on two occasions. As per office report, notice issued to the petitioner has been received back unserved with the report that no such person is working in the department. Memo of Parties’ reflects that on the given office address service may not be possible as no residential address and/or any specific particulars thereof has been given and it is merely an office address where the petitioner was serving at the relevant time. In the premise, no useful purpose would be served to issue fresh notice to the petitioner as the same would be an exercise in futility.

¶19

Even otherwise by sheer effluxion of time and pendency of the writ petition for more than 20 years before this Court, either it has been rendered infructuous or even otherwise the petitioner seems to have lost interest in pursuing the same.

¶20

Be that as it may, writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application in case any cause of action still survives.

¶21

November 29, 2022 (ARUN MONGA) ashish JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶22

ASHISH 2022.12.01 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gobind Lal v. State of Hy.Etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gobind Lal v. State of Hy.Etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.S.Mann Vs State of Hy. and Ors.

Mulakh Raj Ghambir Vs State of Hy.Etc

Phool Singh Vs State Election Comr.Hy. & Ors.

Sukhbir Singh Vs State of Hy & Others

Sangeeta and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jagbir Alias Jagbir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others