Dismissed¶¶22

Gurdip Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Mar 2025CWP/10919/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gurdip Singh v. State of Haryana and others; CWP-10919-1999 (O&M); High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh; Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj; decision dated 04.03.2025; dismissed for non-prosecution; petitioner uncontactable; pay protection A.D.A. Grade-II; Rule 4.4 [c][1] Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. 1 Part 1; retiral benefits and arrears with 18% interest claim not adjudicated; liberty to seek revival; pending civil misc. applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to seek revival of the petition in case any such grievance still survives. ¶¶22

Gurdip Singh Vs State of Haryana — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

102

¶3

CWP-10919-1999 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.03.2025

Gurdip Singh

...Petitioner

VERSUS

The State of Haryana and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

¶10

Present :- Mr. B.S. Patwalia, Advocate and Mr. Abhishek Masih, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶11

Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG Haryana

¶12

Mr. Harmeet Singh Oberoi, Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶13

¶14

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

¶15

The instant writ petition was filed for directing the respondents to protect the pay of the petitioner on his appointment as A.D.A. Grade-II as per Rule 4.4 [c][1] of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. 1, Part 1, as applicable to Haryana and to count the service for calculation of grant of retiral benefits and arrears alongwith interest @18%.

¶16

Undisputedly, the grievance in the present case was nearly 25 years old as on the date when the writ petition was filed and a further period of nearly 25 years has elapsed since then. It seems unlikely that the petitioner would have any further interest in pursuing the present petition.

¶17

MANGAL SINGH 2025.03.04 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

¶19

102

¶20

CWP-10919-1999 (O&M)

¶21

Mr. B.S. Patwalia, Advocate, while appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that he has not been able to contact the petitioner and the letters sent by him have been received back. It seems that the petitioner may not be interested any further in pursuing the present writ petition.

¶22

Dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶23

Liberty is, however, granted to the petitioner to seek revival of

¶24

the present petition, in case any such grievance still survives.

¶25

All pending civil misc. application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶26

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 04.03.2025 JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶27

04.03.2025