High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/18094/2017disposed of

Jaswant Singh And ORS. v. State Of Haryana And ORS.

2017-08-17Mr. Justice A.B. Chaudhari2 pages

CWP No. 18094 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18094 of 2017 Date of decision: 17.08.2017 Jaswant Singh and others ....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

Present:

Mr. S.K. Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners.

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral) The petitioners, who are 6 in number, seek a writ in the nature of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of directions to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date juniors to them were regularized w.e.f. 01.04.2011. Counsel for the petitioners has referred to the details of the petitioners regarding the date of joining and the date of regularization to submit that respondent no. 4-Makhan Lal had joined on 18.10.2002 and was junior to all others except petitioner no. 2 who had also joined on 18.10.2002. The said respondent's regularization had been done from 01.04.2011 whereas, the petitioners have been regularized in the year 2014.

It is further the case of the petitioners that various other similarly situated employees were regularized vide order dated 05.08.2014 and they filed CWP No. 14131 of 2016, Mukesh Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others, in which, directions were issued on 10.01.2017 (Annexure P-8) to decide their legal notice whereby they had sought regularization from Shivani Gupta 2017.08.

CWP No. 18094 of 2017 01.04.2011. It is his case that vide order dated 18.07.2017 (Annexure P-3), others have been granted the benefit of regularization from the said date. Counsel submits that legal notice dated 25.05.2017 (Annexure P-6) has already been served upon the respondents wherein regularization has again been claimed from 01.04.2011 but the same has not been decided. Counsel further submits that he would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents to decide the said legal notice within a fixed time frame. Notice of motion.

Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3. Copy of the writ petition has been supplied to him.

Without commenting on the merits of the case or the entitlement of the petitioners for the abovesaid relief and keeping in view the fact that the matter is still pending consideration, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no. 3 to take a decision on the said legal notice dated 25.05.2017 (Annexure P-6) within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Needless to say if the benefit is to be declined, a reasoned order be passed and the same be conveyed to the petitioners.

17.08.2017 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) shivani JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Shivani Gupta 2017.08.18 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document