← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/5170/2017dismissed

Chander Bhan Sharma And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others

2017-08-29Mr. Justice A.B. Chaudhari2 pages

CWP No. 5170 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5170 of 2017 Date of decision: 29.08.2017 Chander Bhan Sharma and others ....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondent(s)

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

Present:

None for the petitioners.

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral) Case has been called twice, however, none has appeared on behalf of the petitioners. On 15.05.2017, the following order was passed:- "The petitioners claim the benefit of promotion and stepping up from the date of their juniors got this benefit. The services of petitioners No.1 and 2 were regularized w.e.f. 01.01.1987 while though the services of petitioner No.3 were regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1993. They claimed that respondents No.5 and 6 were granted the benefit of regularization and promotion prior to them and claim the same benefit. From the record it transpires that respondents No.5 and 6 had filed CWP No.11107 of 1993 in which they had challenged the prior promotion of persons junior to them.

That writ petition was decided in the year 2013 after 20 years by judgment and order (Annexure P-2) and the respondents were directed to consider their claim from the date when their juniors were promoted and that is how they were given back date promotions. Now the petitioners are claiming the same benefit qua these respondents. To my mind prima-facie the claim is Shivani Gupta 2017.08.

CWP No. 5170 of 2017 highly barred by delay and latches and the petitioners have only now woken up after 30 years to hitch their wagon to the star of the respondents No.5 and 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks a short adjournment to point out why the petition should not be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. Adjourned to 02.08.2017."

Thereafter, the matter came up on 02.08.2017 and proxy counsel had appeared and prayed for accommodation. Today, none is present on behalf of the petitioners.

Accordingly, keeping in view the above, the present writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. 29.08.2017 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) shivani JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Shivani Gupta 2017.08.31 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document