Manoj Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-27723-2022 Date of Decision: 05.12.2022 Manoj Kumar .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present:

Mr. Ashish Naik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Pankaj Middha, Addl.A.G., Haryana.

***** ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL) Petition herein, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing order dated 04.11.2022 (Annexure P-15) passed by respondent No.2and orders dated 07.11.2022 (Annexure P-16) & 16.11.2022 (Annexure P-18) passed by respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner has been allotted additional charge at O/o SDO AH&D, Ferozepur Jhirka-respondent No.5. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already submitted representation dated 11.11.2022 (Annexure P-17), but the same has not been adverted by the respondents till date. 3.

On advance service, learned State counsel appears and submits that a decision will be taken by the competent authority, either way, on the pending representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking order. 4.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner also seeks decision on the pending representation, as suggested by learned Statecounsel. ASHISH 2022.12.06 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-27723-2022 (O&M) -25.

Given the nature of order being passed, there is no necessity to seek return by any of the respondents as no further proceedings and/or pleadings are required.

6.

Keeping in view the extenuating circumstances of the petitioner, without commenting on the merits of the case, it is expected from the competent authority to look into the pending representation for redressal of grievance of the petitioner keeping in mind the peculiar circumstances caused by sudden death of younger brother of the petitioner owing to which he has to look after two minor sons of his brother apart from three minor children of his own. Besides, the petitioner is also aggrieved from that fact that not only he has to remain out of station due to the additional charge, on the other hand, he has not even been paid any other allowances for the same.

7.

Let the needful be done as expeditiously as possible but in any case not later than 30 days.

8.

Till the decision on the representation is taken, the operation of impugned orders shall remain stayed.

9.

Disposed of in the above terms.

(ARUN MONGA) JUDGE December 05, 2022 ashish Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No ASHISH 2022.12.06 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document