Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33796 (PNJ)

KRISHAN AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

CWP/8431/2022 · 2025-07-11

Vinod S Bhardwaj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 220 CWP-8431-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.07.2025 Krishan and another ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- None for the petitioner(s). Mr. Tapan Kumar, DAG Haryana. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) 1. The instant writ petition has been filed for seeking modification of the order No.21 dated 22.06.2020 to the extent of regularisation of services of the petitioners w.e.f. 01.02.1996 instead of 01.10.2003 with all the consequential benefits. 2. It is noticed by this Court that when the matter was earlier taken up on 15.11.2022, on the request of the petitioner, the same was adjourned to 08.03.2023. It was adjourned on 16.10.2023 to 15.01.2024 and 14.05.2024 by order. On 14.05.2024, since there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners, the matter was adjourned to 30.07.2024. Counsel for the petitioner prayed for an adjournment even on the said date. On 25.09.2024, time was sought yet again by counsel for the petitioners and the matter was adjourned to 14.02.2025, on which such date a written request for an adjournment was circulated on behalf of the petitioners and the matter has MANGAL SINGH 2025.07.14 12:48 I am the author of this document 2 220 CWP-8431-2022 (O&M) thus been adjourned for today. Today there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. 3. Learned State counsel further informs that the petitioners had themselves prayed for regularisation under the Policy of 2003 in the first round of litigation and they now want to travel beyond the relief asked for by them in the earlier CWP-9531-2015. 4. Considering that the matter has been adjourned as many as on five occasions on the asking of the counsel for the petitioners, I do not find that sufficient circumstances exits to accommodate the petitioners any further to advance arguments. 5. Dismissed for non-prosecution. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 11.07.2025 JUDGE Mangal Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MANGAL SINGH 2025.07.14 12:48 I am the author of this document