Punjab-Haryana High Court
Puda Officers Welfare Association Etc vs State Of Pb. Etc on 12 January, 2015
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Deepak Sibal
CWP No.8968 of 2007 -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.8968 of 2007
Date of Decision:12.01.2015
The PUDA Officers Welfare Association and others ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
Present: Mr. Shekhar Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
Mr. K.S. Mamrat, Advocate for respondent No.2.
1. To be referred to the reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest.
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
The present petition has been filed by the PUDA Officers Welfare Association alongwith two others challenging the notification dated 14.8.2006 (Annexure P-5) vide which the GMADA has been constituted and established; order dated 19.10.2006 (Annexure P-7) whereby the assessment liability area which earlier was falling under PUDA was transferred to GMADA and orders dated 10.11.2006 and 13.12.2006 (Annexures P-8 and P-9) vide which the respondents have ordered the transfer of the members of the petitioner's association on deputation to GMADA.
It is the case of the petitioners that they were sent on deputation to GMADA without their consent which is in violation of the provisions of the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, (Employees Service) Regulations, 1999.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the RAJEEV THAKRAL 2015.01.17 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.8968 of 2007 -2- petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied if permission is granted to them to make representations with regard to the prayers made in the writ petition to their parent department i.e. PUDA and PUDA be directed to decide such representation in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the State as well as PUDA-respondent No.2 have no objection if the present petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.
In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the members of the petitioner's association as also to petitioners No.2 and 3, who have been sent on deputation to GMADA to make an application/representation as aforesaid. If any such application/representation is made, respondent No.2-PUDA will consider the same in accordance with law and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE ( DEEPAK SIBAL ) JUDGE 12.01.2015 rajeev RAJEEV THAKRAL 2015.01.17 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh