Madan Lal Jolly vs District Education Officer, District Haridwar And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

Petitioner has challenged an order dated 31.03.2020 passed by the respondents, by which two increments of the petitioner were withheld

permanently.

The impugned order dated 31.03.2020 is shown to have been passed under some statutory rules. In para 17 of the petition, it is stated that an appeal

against the impugned order dated 31.03.2020 is pending.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, would submit that appeal against the impugned order has already been submitted to the

competent authority within time. He seeks direction to the respondent concerned that the appeal preferred by the petitioner to the respondent may be

decided expeditiously.

Learned State Counsel gives a statement that the appeal preferred by the petitioner will be decided by the authority concerned within two months

from today.

The Court takes on record the statement given by the learned State counsel.

The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the authority concerned to decide the appeal of the petitioner within two months from today.