Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25477 (PNJ)

SURINDER KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA

CWP/17606/2000 · 2025-03-24

Jagmohan Bansal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 CWP-17606-2000(O&M) Date of Decision : March 24, 2025 SURINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS .....Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....Respondents 2 CWP-10819-2001(O&M) O.P.KHARBASH .....Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS .....Respondents 3 CWP-17504-2000(O&M) HARINDER PAL SINGH .....Petitioner VERSUS HARYANA STATE SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS .....Respondents 4 CWP-1988-2001(O&M) ASHOK KUMAR GOSWAMI .....Petitioner VERSUS HARYANA STATE SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS .....Respondents AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.25 09:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP-17606-2000 -2- 5 CWP-2514-2004 RANBIR SINGH AND ORS. .....Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. .....Respondents 6 CWP-7179-2000(O&M) RANBIR SINGH ……………….Petitioner VERSUS HARYANA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present : Mr. Rohit Kataria, Advocate for Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-1988-2001. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. AG, Haryana. JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1. By this common order, all the above mentioned petitions are disposed of as issues involved in all the petitions are common. 2. On 19.8.2014, CWP-17606-2000 was disposed of as infructuous. The order dated 19.8.2014 reads as under:- “Office report shows that counsel for the petitioners has been informed telephonically of the date fixed. The dispute is regarding the seniority list of Field Officers working with the respondent-Corporation. In the connected writ petition, i.e., CWP No.13950 of 2002, it has been noticed that the Corporation has since closed down its business and its AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.25 09:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP-17606-2000 -3- employees have either been adjusted in other Government Departments/Corporations or they have been paid compensation. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of, as such.” 3. The aforesaid writ petition was restored vide order dated 8.11.2016. The order dated 8.11.2016 reads as:- “Notice of the application has already been issued to the respondents. Mr. Gupta submits that he has no instructions as the file has been taken after the decision of the case on 19.08.2014. It is further submitted that after the decision, the Corporation has closed down and respondent No.2-Director of Industries is the incharge of the Weeding Cell. Mr. Sehrawat submits that the order dated 19.08.2014 is sought to be recalled in which reliance had been placed upon the order passed in CWP No.13950 of 2002 'Subhash Chand Gupta and others Vs. State of Haryana and others' of even date, whereby the writ petition had also been rendered infructuous. It is further submitted that the abovesaid writ petition has been got revived and has been ordered to be listed as per roster, vide order dated 10.04.2015. Keeping in view the above, the application for recalling the order dated 19.08.2014 (Annexure A-1) is allowed. The writ petition is restored to its original number. To be listed as per roster. CM stands disposed of.” 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in CWP-1988 of 2001 submits that as per his instructions, the petitioner has already passed away and his legal representatives are not coming forward. 5. The respondent-Unit stands closed down. 6. In the wake of closure of the unit, this Court does not find it appropriate to pass any order on merit, however, it is made clear that any AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.25 09:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP-17606-2000 -4- benefit already availed by the petitioner(s) on account of interim orders passed by this Court, would not be taken back. 7. Disposed of in the above terms. 8. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) March 24, 2025 JUDGE ajay-1 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.25 09:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh