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 2, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Abha Bansal vs The Karnal Central Coop. Bank Ltd. ... on 23 September, 2011

Author: Ranjit Singh

Bench: Ranjit Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                Civil Writ Petition No. 4129 of 1992
                      Date of decision : 23.09.2011

Abha Bansal                                       .....Petitioner

                      VERSUS

The Karnal Central Coop. Bank Ltd. Karnal and another
                                                 ....Respondents



CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

Present:   Mr. Maharaj Kumar, Advocate
           for the petitioner.

           Mr. S.S. Dalal, Advocate
           for the respondents.

                            ****

RANJIT SINGH, J.

This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4129 and 4727of 1992.

Counsel for the parties have drawn my attention to order passed in CWP No. 16166 of 1991 Krishan Kumar and others versus The Hisar District Central Cooperative Bank Limited and others, which has been decided alongwith number of other writ petitions. All these writ petitions have been dismissed by placing reliance on judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.C. Puttaswami and others v. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore and others 1991 SLR 166 and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Shanti Devi and another v. State of Haryana and others 1999 (2) SLR 259. The reason, which had compelled the Court to take this view was that the person had Civil Writ Petition No. 4129 of 1992 -2- continued to work on this post for more than 15 years. The Court would, accordingly, find that it would be extremely harsh to them and their families if they are now thrown out of service. It is also noticed that by now they have become overage. Having noticed the fact that mere delay should not be a ground for putting a seal of approval on illegal appointments, still the Court, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case and without intending to lay down any precedent, choose not to interfere so as to avoid hardship to respondents-appointees. Following the same course, the present writ petitions are also dismissed.

September 23, 2011                             ( RANJIT SINGH )
rts                                                 JUDGE