IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 1163(2 cases) CWP-36-2009 Ramesh Kumar vs. CWP-8481- Ramesh Kumar vs. CORAM: HON Present : AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. disposed of together. 2. promotion to the post of Naib Teshsildar w.e.f. 21.03.1996 which respondent No.5 had been promoted, who was junior to him, and for quashing the orders and above the aforesaid respondent, was reviewed. this case, his aforesaid respondent in CWP that seniority that was of the Distr determining th his case be re consideration the aforesaid IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1163(2 cases) 2009 (O & M) Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Punjab and Others -2006 Ramesh Kumar vs. F.C. (Revenue) and Others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. R.D.Bawa, Advocate and Mr. Randhir Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab. AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) These cases involve similar issues and therefore, disposed of together. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner i promotion to the post of Naib Teshsildar w.e.f. 21.03.1996 which respondent No.5 had been promoted, who was junior to him, and for quashing the orders whereby seniority granted to the petitioner and above the aforesaid respondent, was reviewed. his seniority has since been upheld respondent in CWP-4591-1996, decided on 27.04.2016 that seniority that was of the District Bathinda would be the basis for determining that in the newly carved out District Mansa his case be re-considered for promotion as Naib Tehsildar, consideration the aforesaid, in a time bound manner. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 20.05.2025 nd Others nd Others BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY , Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab. These cases involve similar issues and therefore, are being counsel submits that the petitioner is claiming promotion to the post of Naib Teshsildar w.e.f. 21.03.1996, the date on which respondent No.5 had been promoted, who was junior to him, and seniority granted to the petitioner over and above the aforesaid respondent, was reviewed. During pendency of has since been upheld by this Court to be above the 1996, decided on 27.04.2016 holding Bathinda would be the basis for District Mansa. Thus, he prays considered for promotion as Naib Tehsildar, taking into in a time bound manner. PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.05.21 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CWP-36-2009 and CWP-8481-2006 -2- 3. The aforesaid facts having been brought out, during the course of hearing, learned State counsel, on instructions, states that the respondents would not be averse to have a relook at the matter and decide afresh, taking note of the aforesaid submissions, within a period of 4 months, uninfluenced by the order impugned in the present case, which this Court has no reason to believe the authorities would not address in a just, fair and reasonable manner. 4. The aforesaid satisfies the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The matter stands disposed of accordingly and if the petitioner is found entitled, grant the benefit forthwith. Needless to say, if the orders are adverse to his interest, the same may be passed after granting opportunity of hearing to him and shall contain reasons, whereupon he shall be free to seek legal redress thereupon. 6. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected file. 20.05.2025 (AMAN CHAUDHARY) parveen kumar JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.05.21 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.