AMIT MAHLA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
CWP/7878/2020 · 2025-04-28
Vinod S Bhardwaj
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 34077 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 34077 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
CWP-7878-2020 (O&M).
-1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH. 227
CWP-7878-2020 (O&M).
Date of Decision: 28.04.2025.
AMIT MAHLA AND OTHERS
... Petitioner(s)
Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Tapan Kumar, DAG, Haryana.
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
Prayer made in the present writ petition is for seeking quashing of the impugned seniority list circulated on 17.09.2019 and well as the consequential departmental promotion. 2
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the petitioners had initially approached this Court challenging the seniority list along with praying for re-determination of the seniority by implementing the Roster point as per the Reservation policy of the State Government primarily as per which the petitioners were entitled to be promoted as compared to other persons to whom the promotion had been extended by the respondent-State. He contends that during the pendency of the instant writ petition, the petitioners RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2025.04.30 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-7878-2020 (O&M).
-2-
already stand promoted. It is submitted that the petitioners shall be satisfied at this juncture, in case the present writ petition is disposed of while granting liberty to the petitioners to submit a detailed and comprehensive representation to the respondent authorities for the determination of their claims including and not restricted to retrospective promotion. 3
Counsel appearing for the respondent-State has no objection to the same. 4
Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of at this stage as not pressed with liberties as aforesaid. 5
Needless to mention that in the event of the petitioners preferring any such representation, the respondents shall take an expeditious decision and preferably within a period of four months of the receipt of such a representation.
April 28, 2025.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) raj arora
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable
: Yes/No RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2025.04.30 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document