Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11409 (PNJ)

NARENDER KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

CWP/378/2025 · 2025-09-04

Sandeep Moudgil

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

106+256 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-378-2025 (O&M) DECIDED ON: 04.09.2025 NARENDER KUMAR .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Randhir S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.S. Dahiya, Advocate Mr. Phool Kumar, Advocate and Ms. Khushi, Advocate for respondent No. 5. Mr. Pardeep Solath, Advocate for respondents No. 6 to 10. **** SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL) This writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned letter dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P/12); impugned order dated 27.03.2018 (Annexure P/13); impugned seniority list dated 30.04.2022 (Annexure P/17) and any other action/orders passed in pursuant/consequent to aforesaid anomalous, arbitrary illegal and unconstitutional letter/order/seniority list, being absolutely erroneous. Anuradha 2025.09.05 06:47 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP-378-2025 (O&M) 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks withdrawal of the present petition with liberty to move representation before the appropriate authority and seeks consideration of the same in a time bound manner. In light of the above, in case a representation is moved within one week from today before the appropriate authority, the same shall be decided by passing a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks (after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent No.4) from the date of receipt of the said representation. Copy of which shall be furnished to the petitioner within one week thereafter. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the instant petition. Consequently, interim order granted vide order dated 04.04.2025 stands vacated and the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) 04.09.2025 JUDGE anuradha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Anuradha 2025.09.05 06:47 I agree to specified portions of this document