Karambir v. State Of Haryana And Others

CWP-11685-2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11685-2022 Date of Decision: 01.05.2026 Karambir .....Petitioner

VERSUS

State Of Haryana And Others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present :

None for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Addl. AG Haryana.

Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

**** HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral) 1.

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment to a Group-C post or any other suitable post on the basis of his qualifications, in terms of the policy dated 14.02.2012 (Annexure P-3) and the judgment dated 26.11.2015 (Annexure P-5) passed by this Court. A further prayer has been made for issuance of writ in the PARUL VERMA 2026.05.05 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-11685-2022 nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to a Group-C post from the date on which other similarly situated persons were appointed, along with all consequential benefits, and to pay arrears with interest @ 18% per annum to the petitioner. 2.

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 submits that the claim raised by the petitioner is hopelessly time-barred, as the land was acquired by the Corporation in the year 1998. It is further contended that the petitioner's case is not covered under the Government policy, as only 3 kanals of land belonging to his family was acquired, which is less than the prescribed benchmark of 2 acres of land. Accordingly, the present petition is liable to be dismissed on account of delay and laches, as well as on the ground of the petitioner's ineligibility.

3.

Today, the present case was called twice, but none has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Even on the last date of hearing i.e. 28.04.2026 there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 4.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution, so also the pending miscellaneous application, if any. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 01.05.2026 Parul Verma Whether speaking/reasoned. :

Yes/No Whether Reportable. :

Yes/No PARUL VERMA 2026.05.05 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.