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

Brij Bala And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 1 March, 2016

Author: Rajiv Narain Raina

Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina

            CWP No.16573 of 2013
                                                                                                 -1-


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                                             CWP No.16573 of 2013
                                                             Date of Decision: 01.03.2016


            Brij Bala and others                                                   ... Petitioners

                                              Versus

            State of Punjab and others                                             ... Respondents


            CORAM:-               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

            Present:            Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate,
                                for the petitioners.

                                Mr. Inqulab Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.

            1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
            2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?


            RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. (Oral)

This matter was adjourned sine die on August 01, 2013 to be listed after the decision in LPA No.504 of 2012 titled State of Punjab v.

Baldev Raj Mittal.

The State appeal has failed on May 22, 2014. The Bench has been at pains to observe:-

"Very surprisingly, out of 18 writ petitions so decided, the appellant-State has preferred to file appeal only in two cases i.e. Civil Writ Petition No.3931 of 1992 and 7567 of 1996. Qua other petitioners in other 16 cases, judgment was accepted and relief was granted."

This matter come up for hearing in the above circumstances.

The claim is for grant of more benefits in acquiring higher qualifications. The operating law would be the decision in appeal and MANJU consequently, this petition is allowed in terms of the judgment of the 2016.03.02 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.16573 of 2013 -2- learned Single Judge upholding in appeal.

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 01.03.2016 manju MANJU 2016.03.02 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh