Administrator Vaish Edu Soc.Rohtak & ANR. v. Sandeep Gupta & ORS.

CR No.3492 of 2016 {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3492 of 2016 Date of decision:18.05.2016 Administrator Vaish Education Society and another ... Petitioners Vs.

Sandeep Gupta and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL 1.

Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?

2.

To be referred to reporters or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Mr. Mukesh Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral) Petitioners - Society is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 19.04.2016 (Annexure P-12) passed by the District Judge, Rohtak, exercising the powers under notification dated 07.05.2013 issued by the Government of Haryana, vide which prayer made for dismissal of the appeal filed by the respondents, has been declined.

Mr. Mukesh Mittal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that against the order of recovery of excess amount of GPF and against the order of termination, much less, demotion, respondents filed a joint appeal instead of separate appeals. However, the said application has erroneously been dismissed as if the aforementioned authority would be dealing with a civil suit, whereas, it was the appeal and in essence, issues had not been framed, thus, there was no stage for the SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2016.06.01 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

CR No.3492 of 2016 {2} parties to lead evidence.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and appraised the paper book and of the view that it is a chance taken by the aggrieved persons, who, have filed the appeal jointly instead of filing three appeals. The view expressed by the Court below in declining the application is perfectly legal and justified. It has been noticed that dates of appointment and as well as, dates of demotion of the respondents are same. In view of what has been observed above, I do not intend to differ with the findings rendered in the impugned order, much less, the same cannot be said to have been passed without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE May 18, 2016 savita SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2016.06.01 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh