Mukesh Bansal v. Union Of India And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.28060 of 2023 Date of Decision:18.01.2024 Mukesh Bansal ....Petitioner vs.
Union of India and others ....Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:
Mr. Jagtar Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Neha Jaggi, Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India Mr. Inderpreet Singh Kang, AAG, Punjab *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.
The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to re-issue him passport.
2.
Counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that police after completing investigation has already presented challan in FIR No.75 dated 27.05.2016. He further submits that in view of Notification No. 570 dated 25.08.1993, the petitioner may be issued passport. 3.
As per afore-cited notification, trial court is court of competent jurisdiction to issue direction to passport authority where challan has already been presented.
CWP No.28060 of 2023 -2- 2024:PHHC:006104 4.
Faced with this, counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the instant petition with liberty to approach trial court in terms of afore-cited Notification.
5.
Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 18.01.2024 paramjit Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.28630 of 2023 Date of Decision:18.01.2024 Jagjit Singh ....Petitioner vs.
Union of India and others ....Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:
Ms. Pratula Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner (through VC) Ms. Ruchita Garg, Central Govt. Counsel for the Union of India Mr. Inderpreet Singh Kang, AAG, Punjab *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.
The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondent No. 3 to re-issue him passport.
2.
The petitioner was issued passport which was valid upto 25.11.2020. Three FIRs came to be registered against the petitioner. The petitioner has already been acquitted in FIR No. 4 dated 10.01.2014 and FIR No. 152 dated 24.09.2016. The petitioner was convicted in FIR No.95 dated 02.07.2013. The petitioner was released on probation and fine of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed which he has already paid.
CWP No.28630 of 2023 -2- 2024:PHHC:006118 3.
Ms. Ruchita Garg, counsel for Union of India submits that petitioner has been issued show cause notice as there is adverse police verification report.
4.
Mr. Inderpreet Singh Kang, AAG, Punjab, on instructions from ASI OM Parkash, submits that petitioner was acquitted in FIR No. 152 dated 24.09.2016 vide judgment dated 15.09.2023 whereas police verification report was submitted much prior to said date, thus, adverse report was forwarded.
5.
Faced with this, counsel for Union of India submits that petitioner may be directed to appear before the passport authority alongwith requisite documents. Thereafter, the passport authority would pass an appropriate order within six weeks.
6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to the aforesaid arrangement.
7.
In the wake of statements of both sides, the petition stands disposed of with a direction to petitioner to appear before the passport authority on 13.02.2024 alongwith requisite documents. On doing so, the passport authority would pass an appropriate order within six weeks from 13.02.2024.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 18.01.2024
CWP- 9380 of 2019 (O&M) SANDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER VS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Present:
Mr. R.D.Bawa, Advocate Mr. Randhir Bawa, Advocate Mr. Samuel Gill, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Gehna Vaishnavi, Central Govt. Counsel for the Union of India *** CM-11940-CWP-2021 The applicants-respondents through instant application are seeking to place on record reply in CM No. 3115-CWP-2021. Allowed as prayed for.
Reply to CM No. 3115-CWP-2021 is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place. Main case Mr. R.D.Bawa, Advocate, submits that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by judgments of Gauhati High Court in Pramod Singh and others vs. The Union of India and others WP(C) 3756/2009 and Ghanashyam Vishwakarma vs. The Director General, Boarder Roads Organisation and others WP No. 51 of 2009. The respondents vide communication dated 25.10.2013 have implemented judgments of Gauhati High Court. In the said communication, it has been specifically clarified that benefit of the judgment would be available to all the similarly situated non diploma holders. The respondents have extended benefit of re-fixation of pay in terms of recommendations of the 5th and 6th Pay Commission even to non diploma holders whereas petitioners are three years Diploma holders
CWP- 9380 of 2019 (O&M) -2in the Engineering. The petitioners were appointed against posts for which ITI was also one of the minimum prescribed qualification. The qualification prescribed for the post of Draughtsman GDEII(Civil) is as below:- Essential Qualification:
Passed 03 years Certificate / Diploma in Architecture / Draughtsmanship from a Recognized institution or equivalent OR Possessing National apprenticeship Certificate issued by National Council for Vocational Training, Government of India, Ministry of Labour OR Passed Diploma Course in Draughtsman Estimating and Design from College of Military Engineering, Pune. OR Passed 2 years National Trade certificate for Draughtsman (Civil) and having one year practical experience in the trade.
The respondents in the reply have repeatedly pointed out that for recruitment to the post of Draughtsman Grade II prescribed qualification is two years certificate from ITI.
The reply as well as stand of the respondents during the course of arguments seems to be contrary to the judgments of Gauhati High Court, communication dated 25.10.2013 of the respondents and essential qualification prescribed for the post of Draughtsman. Faced with this, learned counsel for respondents seeks time to get instructions.
Adjourned to 01.02.2024.
To be shown in the urgent list.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 18.01.2024 paramjit
CWP-11581-2019 BALJEET SINGH VS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND ORS
Present:
Mr. J.S.Maanipur, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. V.Ramswaroop, Advocate for respondents *** The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 30.09.2016 (Annexure P-6) whereby he has been awarded punishment of reduction of basic pay by ten stages.
The punishment has been awarded on account of unauthorised absence from duty. The petitioner concededly remained absent from duty for 700 days during the period from 1996 to 2013. The said period was considered as loss of pay period.
As per counsel for the petitioner, the absence period has been treated by respondents as loss of pay period, thus, he cannot be subjected to further punishment of reduction of basic pay by ten stages. The petitioner in support of his contention relies upon judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Surinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others. 2007(3) S.C.T. 288.
Mr. V. Ramswaroop, counsel for respondents submits that unauthorised absence from duty amounts to mis-conduct and as per regulations of respondents, an employee may be subjected to minor or major
CWP-11581-2019 -2punishment for absence from duty besides non-payment of salary for the period of absence. He seeks time to produce relevant regulations. Adjourned to 23.01.2024.
To be shown in the urgent list.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 18.01.2024 paramjit