← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/8577/1996dismissed

Sushma Rani v. Haryana Seed Development Corporation Limited Chandigarh And Others

2017-08-08Mr. Justice Arun Palli2 pages

CWP-8577-1996

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-8577-1996 Date of Decision :08.08.2017 SUSHMA RANI .....Petitioner

Versus

HARYANA SEED DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

*** AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (ORAL) This petition was admitted to regular hearing by an order of a Division Bench dated 23.09.1996, but has been put up in motion hearing as it was ordered to be listed after the decision of the Full Bench. However, the title or number of the case which was before the Full Bench is not known to the Registry.

None has appeared for the petitioner, though it has been relisted in motion hearing twice before today, i.e. on 24.01.2017 and 03.04.2017. Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Addl. A.G. Haryana, learned counsel for the respondent Seed Corporation has filed in Court today a short reply by way of an affidavit of the Chief Manager(P&A) of the Seed Corporation, stating to the effect that the petitioner, who had been working on an ad-hoc basis, was not subsequently continued in service after 16.07.1996, her services having come to an end by efflux of time.

SUNIL DEVI 2017.08.17 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-8577-1996 It is further stated that no person on ad-hoc basis was thereafter appointed in her place. Therefore, since none has appeared for the petitioner, and as per the respondents in their affidavit, she has never been replaced by any other contractual employee thereafter, this petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.

However, a copy of this order be sent to the petitioner at the address given in the memo of parties and in case the petitioner is aggrieved of it in any manner, or of the reply filed by the respondents in Court today, she would be at liberty to file an application for restoration of the petition, giving reasons for such disagreement.

(AMOL RATTAN SINGH) JUDGE August 08, 2017 Sunil Devi/dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No SUNIL DEVI 2017.08.17 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document