High CourtsSingle Bench(2003) 03 P&H CK 0037

M.R. Manchanda vs State of Haryana, Shri A.K. Khetarpal, Shri S.K. Bansal, Shri S.S. Bida, Shri A.K. Gupta, Shri Manpal Singh, Shri K.K. Yadav, Shri Sujana Ram, Shri D.P.S. Beniwal, Shri R.K. Singla, Shri B.S. Singroha, Shri D.R. Yadav, Shri D.S. Bajwa and Shri O.P. Goyal

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 11 March 2003

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mehtab S. Gill, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 6278 of 2001

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 272 words

Mehtab S. Gill, J.—Civil Writ Petition Nos. 6278 of 2000, 2132, 10347, 13410, 17219 of 1988 and 1922 of 2001 are disposed of with the following order.

2.

Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Additional Advocate General Haryana appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 has stated, on the instructions of Haryana State, that respondent No. 1, if directed, writ re-consider the whole issue and prepare fresh seniority list of Class-I officers in all the three departments i.e. B&R, Irrigation and Public Health by adopting one uniform criteria.

3.

Heard

4.

Respondent No. 1 through the Chief Secretary, is directed to dispose of and finalise the seniority of the petitioners in all the three departments, after re-considering the whole matter i.e. regarding re-fixation of seniority by adopting one uniform criteria.

5.

This process and the necessary procedure shall be gone through by the respondent-State within 60 days, from the receiving of this order.

6.

Petitioners are at liberty to file representations if they so desire within 10 days of the passing of this order. Final seniority list, which respondent No. 1 prepares, shall be supplied to the petitioners.

7.

After the passing of final orders, respondent No. 1-State shall not implement these orders for 10 days, so that any of the parties, if not satisfied, with the said seniority list may challenge the same, in the Court of law.

8.

Parties are also at liberty to file a Civil Miscellaneous application to have the petitions restored so that they be decided on merits, if not satisfied by the order of respondent No. 1.

9.

With the above observations and directions, these petitions are disposed of.