Vvf Village Volunteer Force ... vs Union Of India & Others on 20 September, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Vvf Village Volunteer Force ... vs Union Of India & Others on 20 September, 2011

Bench: Ranjit Singh

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH


                         Civil Writ Petition No.950 of 2010
                         Date of Decision: September 20, 2011

VVF Village Volunteer Force Association, Gurdaspur

                                                         ...Petitioner

                                 Versus

Union of India & others
                                                         ...Respondents



CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

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?


Present:    Mr.R.S.Manhas, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

            Mr.Sanjay Joshi, Advocate,
            Senior Standing Counsel,
            for the Union of India.

                         *****

RANJIT SINGH, J.

VVF Village Volunteer Force Association through its President, has filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 13.11.2007, vide which the representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner-Association also prays for writ of mandamus for granting the benefit to them in terms of the judgment passed by the Gauhati High Court (Imphal Bench) rendered in Civil Rule No.202 of 1998, decided on 8.9.2000, vide which the respondents were directed to frame a scheme as has been done in the case of Manipur Volunteer for absorption as directed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in CWP No.469 of 2007.

Notice of motion was issued and the reply has been filed. Counsel for the petitioner-Association today points out Civil Writ Petition No.950 of 2010 :2: that the draft scheme has already been framed and it is in his possession. The draft scheme has been sent to the Government for approval.

Since the prayer, which is sought in the present writ petition, is in the process of being granted, there would not be any need to keep the writ petition pending. The respondents may take a final decision on the draft scheme within a reasonable period. If any adverse decision is taken against the petitioners, they would be at liberty to approach this court again.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

September 20, 2011                             ( RANJIT SINGH )
ramesh                                              JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court