Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yogender Mann And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 19 August, 2014
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Arun Palli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 13292 of 2014
DATE OF DECISION : 19.08.2014
Yogender Mann and others
.... PETITIONERS
Versus
State of Haryana and another
.... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Present : Mr. Ram Niwas Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) The petitioners, who are working as Taxation Inspectors in the Excise & Taxation Department, Haryana, have filed this writ petition challenging Rule 9 (1) (b) (ii) of the Haryana Excise & Taxation Department (Group - B) Service (Amendment) Rules, 2011, which provides promotion quota to the post of Assistant Excise & Taxation Officer upto 6.2/3% from amongst the Superintendents.
According to the petitioners, no quota of promotion to the post of Assistant Excise & Taxation Officer should be provided from amongst the Superintendents, because the quota of promotion to the aforesaid post provided earlier from amongst the Assistants and Senior Scale Stenographers has been found unreasonable by this Court vide judgment DASS NAROTAM 2014.08.20 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 13292 of 2014 -2- dated 21.2.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed in CWP No. 5479 of 1999. Learned counsel submits that in this regard, the petitioners had made a representation dated 19.8.2013 to the Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Haryana (respondent No.2 herein), copy of which has been annexed with this petition as Annexure P-5. Thereafter, the petitioners served a legal notice dated 12.9.2013 upon the respondents, copy of which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-7. Learned counsel further submits that till date, the respondents have not taken any decision either on the aforesaid representation or the legal notice. He states that at this stage, this petition may be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners by passing a speaking order.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, without issuing notice of motion as it will un-necessary delay the matter, we dispose of this petition with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the aforesaid representation and legal notice, in accordance with law, expeditiously, by passing a speaking order.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
August 19, 2014 ( ARUN PALLI )
ndj JUDGE
DASS NAROTAM
2014.08.20 15:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document