Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sham Sunder And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 6 August, 2012
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.20794 of 2010
Date of Decision : August 06, 2012
Sham Sunder and others .....Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH.
Present : Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr.R.S.Kundu, Additional AG, Haryana.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
The petitioners joined the respondent-Department as Investigators though two of them, namely, petitioners No.1 & 2 have been promoted as Programme Officers during the pendency of writ petition and are now officiating as District Social Welfare Officers. Their grievance is against Rule-7 of the Directorate of Social Justice and Empowerment Haryana (Group B) Service Rules, 2000, prescribing minimum eligibility conditions which are detrimental to promotional avenues of the petitioners. The petitioners also seek a mandamus to direct the respondents to finalize the draft Service Rules which are pending consideration for a sufficient long period.
We find from the record that this petition has been adjourned repeatedly on the request of State counsel to enable the Competent Authority to finalize the pending draft rules. No one from the Department has turned up today to assist Mr.R.S.Kundu, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana. He, however, requests for adjournment to enable the CWP No.20794 of 2010 [2] State Government to take a final decision in the matter.
In our considered view, there is no necessity to keep this writ petition pending. Suffice it would be at this stage to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to take a final decision in relation to the draft Service Rules pertaining to the post of Assistant Programme Officer and/or any other posts. Let the needful be done as early as possible but not later than six months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. The petitioner, if aggrieved by the notified Rules, shall be at liberty to approach an appropriate forum, in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
Dasti.
(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE
August 06, 2012 (R.P.NAGRATH)
Mohinder JUDGE