Disposed

Ramlal v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Jan 2023CWP/28293/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a speaking order regarding his appointment, seniority, and representation claims. The court directed the respondent authority to consider the petitioner's representation within a month and issue a speaking order before disposing of the matter.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's representation dated 25.08.2022 directed to be considered by respondent No. 2 within a month with a speaking order.

Ramlal Vs State of Haryana and Others — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

�� IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

107

¶3

CWP-28293-2022 Date of decision: 05.01.2023

RAMLAL

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr. A.S. Khara, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

RAJ MOHAN SINGH , J.(ORAL)

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the representation of the petitioner was decided by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Home Department vide order dated 12.08.2016. The claim as regards the appointment at par with Mamta Sodha was declined as no post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was available under the sports quota. However, the case of the petitioner was considered at par with Kanta Devi and Anita Kundu who were batch mates of the petitioner for the Mount Everest expedition and were appointed Sub-Inspectors in the Police Department in the year 2014. The petitioner was also appointed to the same post at par with his aforesaid batch mates. The seniority

¶14

POONAM BHATT 2023.01.05 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this Judicial Record/Decree/Document, which is scanned copy of the original

¶15

CWP-28293-2022

¶16

-2-

¶17

position of the petitioner has not been decided so far despite objections filed by the petitioner. Precisely for the claim in question, the petitioner has already moved the representation dated 25.08.2022 before respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the same has not been decided so far.

¶18

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case his representation dated 25.08.2022 is directed to be decided by the respondent No.2 by passing a speaking order.

¶19

Notice of motion.

¶20

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Tapan Kumar Yadav, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of State of Haryana and on instructions submits that the legal notice dated 25.08.2022 filed by the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified of this order.

¶21

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶22

If at all the petitioner is aggrieved against the outcome of the representation, he may avail his legal remedy in accordance with law.

¶23

05.01.2023 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH) P.Bhatt JUDGE

¶24

Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No

¶25

POONAM BHATT 2023.01.05 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this Judicial Record/Decree/Document, which is scanned copy of the original

Ramlal v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramlal 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

M/S Raman Industries Vs Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. Chandigarh & Ors.

Sanjay Pannu Vs State of Haryana and Others

M/S Trend Setters Vs M/S Lpt Retail Private Ltd. and Ors.

Satinder Pal Singh Vs the State Transport Commissioner Punjab and Another

Ravi Vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission

Sunil Vs State of Haryana and Another