High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/26396/2019disposed of

Santosh And Others v. State Of Haryana And ORS.

2019-09-18Mr. Justice Amit Rawal2 pages

YOGESH SHARMA 2019.09.20 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26396-2019 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-26396-2019 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.09.2019 Santosh and others ... Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners.

**** AMIT RAWAL, J. (ORAL) Petitioners are seeking indulgence of this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize services of petitioners in terms of policy decision dated 01.10.2003 and 10.02.2004 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) or from the date when the benefit has been granted to the number of similarly situated employees/juniors to petitioners and in this regard, had submitted legal notice dated 19.02.2019 (Annexure P-6), but there is no adherence thereto. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that he will be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent No.3-Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial) Sonipat, to consider the legal notice dated 19.02.2019 (Annexure P-6) keeping in view judgment dated 20.09.2016 (Annexure P-7), within a stipulated period.

Without going into the merits and demerits of the claim of the

YOGESH SHARMA 2019.09.20 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26396-2019 (O&M) petitioners, I deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.3, to consider the legal notice dated 19.02.2019 (Annexure P-6) keeping in view judgment dated 20.09.2016 (Annexure P-7), within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and shall pass a speaking order thereon, after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioners and taking into consideration judicial precedents as well, failing which, respondent No.3, shall be liable to pay costs of `25,000/- to the petitioners. This condition of imposing costs is only to prevent petitioners to run from pillar to post and avail remedy of contempt in case of noncompliance of directions issued by this Court. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction. ( AMIT RAWAL ) JUDGE 18.09.2019 Yogesh Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/ No Whether Reportable Yes/ No