Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sarita Sachdeva vs State Of Haryana And Others on 16 April, 2009

Author: Ajay Tewari

Bench: Ajay Tewari

CWP No. 18067 of 2005               1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH

                              CM No. 3592 of 2009 in
                              CWP No. 18067 of 2005

                              Date of Decision: April 16, 2009


Sarita Sachdeva                                       ...... Petitioner


      Versus


State of Haryana and others                           ...... Respondents


Coram:      Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari


Present:    Mr. B.K.Bagri, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr.Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana.

            Mr.G.K.Khanna, Advocate
            for respondent No.2.

                  ****

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?


Ajay Tewari, J.

CM No. 3592 of 2009 CM allowed. Documents taken on record. CWP No. 18067 of 2005 This petition was filed claiming the benefit of previous service for the purpose of computation of retiral benefits. By CM No. 3592 of 2008 the petitioner has placed on record recommendations made by the respondent No.2 whereby it has been resolved that the amendment CWP No. 18067 of 2005 2 proposed by the University favouring persons like the petitioner should be approved.

Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that this petition be disposed of at this stage with a direction to respondent No.1 to take an appropriate decision on the said recommendation within any reasonable time.

I find this request to be fair and just. In the circumstances this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the proposal sent by respondent No.2 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE April 16, 2009 sunita