Disposed¶23

Amit Mahla and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Apr 2025CWP/7878/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Seniority list dated 17.09.2019; roster point; reservation policy of State Government; departmental promotion; retrospective promotion; writ petition disposed of as not pressed; liberty to submit representation to respondents; decision preferably within four months; State of Haryana; Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.; CWP-7878-2020 (O&M); decision date 28.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the petitioners to submit a detailed and comprehensive representation (including claims to retrospective promotion); respondents to decide expeditiously, preferably within four months of receipt of the representation. ¶23

Amit Mahla and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners' seniority required re-determination by implementing the roster point under the State reservation policy, entitling them to promotion ahead of other persons promoted by the respondent-State (raised by petitioners but not decided on merits; petition disposed of as not pressed).

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of at this stage as not pressed, with liberties as prayed for by the petitioners.

¶23

Key takeaways

Liberty is granted to the petitioners to submit a detailed and comprehensive representation to the respondent authorities for determination of their claims, including and not restricted to retrospective promotion.ratio¶20
In the event such a representation is preferred, the respondents shall take an expeditious decision, preferably within four months of its receipt.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP-7878-2020 (O&M), Amit Mahla and others v. State of Haryana and others (Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, decided orally on 28.04.2025 by Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.). The petitioners had challenged the seniority list circulated on 17.09.2019 and the consequential departmental promotions, contending that their seniority ought to be re-determined by implementing the roster point under the State reservation policy, entitling them to promotion ahead of persons already promoted. Counsel informed the Court that during pendency the petitioners had already been promoted and sought disposal with liberty to file a detailed representation covering their claims, including retrospective promotion. The respondent-State raised no objection. The writ petition was disposed of as not pressed with such liberty, and the respondents were directed to take an expeditious decision, preferably within four months of receipt of the representation. No statute or precedent was cited; no quantum awarded.

¶1

CWP-7878-2020 (O&M). - 1 -

¶2

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

227

¶4

CWP-7878-2020 (O&M). Date of Decision: 28.04.2025.

¶5

AMIT MAHLA AND OTHERS

¶6

... Petitioner(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

¶9

... Respondent(s)

¶10

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

¶11

Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Tapan Kumar, DAG, Haryana.

¶13

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Prayer made in the present writ petition is for seeking quashing

¶15

of the impugned seniority list circulated on 17.09.2019 and well as the consequential departmental promotion.

¶16

2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the petitioners had initially approached this Court challenging the seniority list along with praying for re-determination of the seniority by implementing the Roster point as per the Reservation policy of the State Government primarily as per which the petitioners were entitled to be promoted as compared to other persons to whom the promotion had been extended by the respondent-State. He contends that during the pendency of the instant writ petition, the petitioners

¶17

RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2025.04.30 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CWP-7878-2020 (O&M).

¶19

- 2 -

¶20

already stand promoted. It is submitted that the petitioners shall be satisfied at this juncture, in case the present writ petition is disposed of while granting liberty to the petitioners to submit a detailed and comprehensive representation to the respondent authorities for the determination of their claims including and not restricted to retrospective promotion.

¶21

3 Counsel appearing for the respondent-State has no objection to the

¶22

same.

¶23

4 Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of at this stage as not pressed with liberties as aforesaid.

¶24

5 Needless to mention that in the event of the petitioners preferring any such representation, the respondents shall take an expeditious decision and preferably within a period of four months of the receipt of such a representation.

¶25

April 28, 2025. ( VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) raj arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶26

RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2025.04.30 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Amit Mahla and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Mahla and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashmila and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Monu Gulia and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sheela Devi Vs State of Haryana and Others

Nikhil Sharma Vs Union of India and Others

Jaswinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Raviner Singh Brar Vs Punjab and Sind Bank etc.