Krishan Kumar v. Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructural Development Corp. Ltd. And ORS.

YOGESH SHARMA 2019.07.25 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17514-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-17514-2017 Date of decision : 18.07.2019 Krishan Kumar ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited and others ... Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. J.P.S. Smagh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2.

**** AMIT RAWAL, J. (ORAL) CM-10156-2019 For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, replication along with Annexures P-17 to P-18 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

CM stands disposed of.

MAIN CASE The grievance of the petitioner, in the present writ petition, is that his case be considered for promotion.

The stand of the respondents, as per reply, is that there are certain inquiries pending against the petitioner, therefore, his case could not be considered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the

YOGESH SHARMA 2019.07.25 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17514-2017 pendency of the writ petition, certain events have taken place and Managing Director, HSIIDC, has dropped the enquiry, therefore, he is entitled to promotion for the post of Assistant General Manager. Mr. Saini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent(s) submitted that the petitioner has to fulfill the condition of experience as well as educational qualifications for the promotional post. He further urged that in case, representation, in this regard, is submitted, the same shall be decided in pragmatic manner.

Keeping in view the stand of the respondents, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to submit representation qua his promotion. In case, such representation is moved, the same shall be decided, by passing a speaking order and after affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of 2 1⁄2 months from the date of receipt of representation, failing which, there shall be costs of `50,000/- to be paid to the petitioner and recovered from the salary of the concerned Officer, who is responsible in not taking the decision. ( AMIT RAWAL ) JUDGE 18.07.2019 Yogesh Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/ No Whether Reportable Yes/ No