Disabled employee sought extension of service up to age 60. The State conceded the case was covered by an earlier Division Bench decision, whose LPA had been disposed of as infructuous with the legal question kept open.
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.
CWP-12809-2016 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
214
CWP-12809-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.08.2024
Om Parkash Manjhu
......Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Tapan Kumar, DAG, Haryana.
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
SATYAWAN 2024.08.08 09:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-12809-2016 (O&M)
2
22.04.2019, to await the decision of the said LPA, which was subsequently disposed of on 30.10.2019 as having been rendered infructuous as the respondent therein was granted extension. However, the legal question raised therein was kept open to be considered in an appropriate case.
order.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE
05.08.2024
Satyawan
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes / No Whether reportable: Yes / No
SATYAWAN 2024.08.08 09:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a disabled employee is entitled to extension of service up to the age of 60 years in terms of the earlier judgment in CWP-3919-2015.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hardev Kaur vs. State of Haryana and othersApplied¶3
Hardev Kaur vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP-3919-2015) decided on 04.03.2015
Om Parkash Manjhu
State of Haryana and others
Aman Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
