Banwari Lal v. State Of Haryana And ORS.

CWP No.29663 of 2017 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.29663 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.02.2023 BANWARI LAL ......Petitioner Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH Present:None for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, D.A.G., Haryana.

**** RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to release the salary of the petitioner for the period from 29.06.2001 to 27.10.2001, the admissibility of which has been recorded in the order dated 04.07.2007 passed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Ambala/respondent No.3.

Learned State counsel with reference to the para no.3 of the written statement submits that the salary of the petitioner was Rs.9,053/- per month and for the period 29.06.2001 to 27.10.2001, the total arrears of salary came out to be Rs.35,351/- and the said amount has already been released in favour of the petitioner by depositing the same in the State Bank MOHMED ATIK 2023.02.24 19.47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP No.29663 of 2017 (O&M)  of India in the account of the petitioner i.e. Account No.10488004379 on 30.07.2008 i.e. much before filing of this writ petition. In this context, the respondent No.3 has annexed supporting documents as Annexures R-1 and R-2 with the reply. In this case, notice of motion was issued on 12.02.2018. Thereafter on 26.10.2018, learned State counsel sought time to file reply. Thereafter no meaningful proceedings could be taken in this case as none appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 26.08.2019 and 21.11.2019.

On 06.07.2022, it was made clear that if no one appears on behalf of the petitioner on the adjourned date, an appropriate order will be passed. Even thereafter, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 24.08.2022. It appears that on coming to know about the factum of the payment having been made in favour of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has lost track of the petition. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find no ground to interfere in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

(RAJ MOHAN SINGH) February 23, 2023 JUDGE Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHMED ATIK 2023.02.24 19.47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment