Bhupendra Singh vs Chandigarh Administration And Others on 20 March, 2009

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Bhupendra Singh vs Chandigarh Administration And Others on 20 March, 2009

Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH.

                                                   C.W.P. No. 4411 of 2009
                                         DATE OF DECISION : 20.03.2009

Bhupendra Singh

                                                            .... PETITIONER

                                   Versus

Chandigarh Administration and others

                                                        ..... RESPONDENTS


CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL


Present:    Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

                         ***

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioner, who at present is working as Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing direction to the respondents to grant him the Senior Scale and Selection Grade under the Policy of the University Grants Commission, circulated vide order dated 28.2.1989, while counting his previous service as Lecturer at Military College of Telecommunication Engineering, Mhow, which is a Central Government Undertaking.

The petitioner is claiming the counting of his previous service for the aforesaid benefit in view of the circular dated 27.11.1990, Annexure P-1, issued by the University Grants Commission. It is further case of the CWP No. 4411 of 2009 -2- petitioner that for the said claim, he made various representations to the authorities and his last representation, Annexure P-5, is dated 28.2.2006. Counsel for the petitioner submits that those representations have not been decided so far and the claim of the petitioner in light of the the Scheme and the circular Annexure P-1, issued by the University Grants Commission, has not been considered and decided. Counsel confines his prayer for issuing direction to the authorities to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner.

After hearing counsel for the petitioner, without issuing notice of motion as it will un-necessary delay the matter, respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the representation Annexure P-5 submitted by the petitioner, in light of the Circular Annexure P-1, by passing a speaking order, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months.

Disposed of accordingly.

March 20, 2009                            ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
ndj                                                JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court