Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 139151 (PNJ)

PARDEEP MIGLANI AND ORS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

CWP/1091/2002 · 2025-12-08

Harpreet Singh Brar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CWP-3020- IN TH 201(2 cases) 1. Balwan Singh State of Hary 2. Pardeep Migl State of Hary CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. petitions. For 1 -2001 and CWP-1091-2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGA cases) Singh and another VERSUS f Haryana and others p Miglani and others VERSUS f Haryana and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA None for the petitioners. Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Addl. AG Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate for r REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) This order of mine shall dispos or the sake of brevity, the facts are NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH Date of decision:08.12.2025 CWP-3020-2001 .....Petitioner SUS .....Responden CWP-1091-2002 .....Petitioner SUS .....Responden E HARPREET SINGH BRAR l. AG Haryana. te for respondent No.4. dispose of two above-mentioned writ cts are taken from CWP-3020-2001. .2025 ioners ondents ioners ondents d writ PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.09 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3020- 2. the Constitut directing the 09.07.1998 03.08.1999 i 1999, Ajay K arrears. Furth the show cau 3. behalf of the pursuing the c 4. prosecution, s 5. cases. December 08 P.C 2 -2001 and CWP-1091-2002 The present petition(s) has been nstitution of India for issuance of a w g the respondents to treat the petition 998 and to treat the petitioner a 999 in terms of the judgment of thi ay Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, wi . Further for issuance of a writ in the n w cause notice dated 02.11.2000 being The case was called twice but of the petitioner(s). It seems that p g the case. Accordingly, the present writ pet tion, so also the pending miscellaneous Photocopy of this order be pl ber 08, 2025 Whether speaking/r Whether Reportable been filed under Article 226/227 of of a writ in the nature of mandamus etitioner as an adhoc employee w.e.f. ner as a regular employee w.e.f. of this Court passed in CWP-6479 , with all consequential benefits and n the nature of certiorari for quashing 0 being illegal and void. e but none has put in appearance on that petitioner(s) is not interested in rit petition(s) is dismissed for want of neous application, if any. be placed on the file of connected (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE king/reasoned. : Yes/No ortable. : Yes/No of mus w.e.f. w.e.f. 479- ts and ashing ce on sted in ant of ected RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.09 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document