The petitioner withdrew the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution as the respondents did not press the impugned letter/order despite earlier court orders on back wages.
The writ petition is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn.
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.
111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-1615-2022 (O&M) Date of decision-25.01.2023
Rajesh
...Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and others ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ BAJAJ
Present: Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
MANOJ BAJAJ, J. (Oral)
Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of impugned letter/order dated 12.04.2021 (Annexure P-11), whereby respondent No.3 rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of back wages in complete violation of the order dated 06.09.2016 passed by this Court in CWP No.9533 of 2014 titled ‘Rajesh Vs. Union of India and others’.
Learned counsel states that against the impugned decision dated 12.04.2021 (Annexure P-11), which amounts to contempt of the writ order dated 06.09.2016, the petitioner would avail the alternate remedy available to him. He does not press this writ petition and prays for withdrawal of the same.
The prayer is accepted.
The writ petition is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn.
| (MANOJ BAJAJ) JUDGE |
||
|---|---|---|
| 25.01.2023 | ||
| geeta | ||
| Whether speaking/reasoned : | Yes No |
|
| Whether Reportable : | Yes No |
GEETA RANI 2023.01.25 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CWP No.9533 of 2014Referred¶11
Rajesh
Union of India
Manoj Bajaj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
