Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17733 (PNJ)

SOM RAJ v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

CWP/3309/2021 · 2025-09-12

Sandeep Moudgil

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[108] Som Raj Union of India and others Coram : Present : SANDEEP MOUDGIL [1] 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the of Mandamus for issuance of direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization of services etc. [2] arguing for some time a suffers from delay and laches of more than 25 years and is otherwise barred in view of the mandate of the Full Bench judgment in State of Punjab through the Secretary, PWD (P.H.) Punjab Chandigarh and another petition with permission to take other legal remedy as per law. [3] [4] aforesaid. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3309 Date of Decision : Versus Union of India and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICESANDEEP MOUDGIL Ms. Anmol Thakur, Advocate for Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Prakhar Bhatnagar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3. *** SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J. (ORAL) The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the of Mandamus for issuance of direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization of services etc. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, after arguing for some time and being faced with the situation that the petition suffers from delay and laches of more than 25 years and is otherwise barred in view of the mandate of the Full Bench judgment in State of Punjab through the Secretary, PWD (P.H.) Punjab Chandigarh and another, 1983 PLR 666 with permission to take other legal remedy as per law. Prayer is accepted. Petition is directed to be dismissed as withdrawn aforesaid. PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 3309-2021 Date of Decision :12.09.2025 …Petitioner ….Respondents SANDEEP MOUDGIL Advocate for Mr. Deepak Arora, Mr. Prakhar Bhatnagar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus for issuance of direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization of services etc. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, after nd being faced with the situation that the petition suffers from delay and laches of more than 25 years and is otherwise barred in view of the mandate of the Full Bench judgment in Manohar Lal versus State of Punjab through the Secretary, PWD (P.H.) Punjab , 1983 PLR 666, prays for withdrawal of the with permission to take other legal remedy as per law. Petition is directed to be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty Mr. Deepak Arora, The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Articles issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus for issuance of direction to the respondents to consider the Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, after nd being faced with the situation that the petition suffers from delay and laches of more than 25 years and is otherwise barred Manohar Lal versus State of Punjab through the Secretary, PWD (P.H.) Punjab, , prays for withdrawal of the with liberty RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.09.16 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3309 [5] construed as condoning the delay and laches, if any, in the claim, which shall be considered and decided by the concerned Industrial Tribunal on its own merits 12.09.2025 ‘Rajneesh' 3309-2021 However, it is further clarified that this order shall not be construed as condoning the delay and laches, if any, in the claim, which shall be considered and decided by the concerned Industrial Tribunal on its own merits. 12.09.2025 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable -2- t is further clarified that this order shall not be construed as condoning the delay and laches, if any, in the claim, which shall be considered and decided by the concerned Industrial Tribunal on its (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No t is further clarified that this order shall not be construed as condoning the delay and laches, if any, in the claim, which shall be considered and decided by the concerned Industrial Tribunal on its ) RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.09.16 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document