LPA-1844-2024 103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT MAHESH KUMAR AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR Present: Mr. for the SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) CM-2016-LPA Application for placing on record annexure A-1 to A Registry to place the same at appropriate place. LPA-1844-2024 1. Heard learned counsel on the merits of the appeal. 2. While we notice that the appeal itself is time barred by 195 days and application for condonation of delay has been moved, we find that merits the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference not set up their claim before the Court when similarly situated other persons had filed the petition. 2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH MAHESH KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA **** Mr. Pankaj Maini, Advocate for the appellants. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) LPA-2025 Application for placing on record 1 to A-3 is allowed. Registry to place the same at appropriate place. 2024 (O&M) Heard learned counsel on the merits of the appeal. While we notice that the appeal itself is time barred by 195 days and application for condonation of delay has been moved, we find that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference, as it is an admitted position that the appellants had not set up their claim before the Court when similarly situated other persons had filed the petition. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1844-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.03.2025 . . . . Appellants . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Application for placing on record better affidavit along with Registry to place the same at appropriate place. Heard learned counsel on the merits of the appeal. While we notice that the appeal itself is time barred by 195 days and application for condonation of delay has been moved, we find that on the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant as it is an admitted position that the appellants had not set up their claim before the Court when similarly situated other (O&M) .2025 Appellants s better affidavit along with While we notice that the appeal itself is time barred by 195 days and on the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant as it is an admitted position that the appellants had not set up their claim before the Court when similarly situated other MOHIT GOYAL 2025.03.21 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1844-2024 3. The Supreme Court in its order granting benefit to the persons had passed the relief 4. So far as the appellants are concerned, they had approached the Court after the earlier Rules had been repealed and brought i 5. Considering that the writ petitions were filed learned Single Judge has rightly found the claim of the appellants/ petitioners to be stale and Rules came 6. In view thereto, no case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed Application No. accordingly dis 7. All pending applications also stand disposed of. 19.03.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 2024 (O&M) The Supreme Court in its order granting benefit to the persons had passed Acharya degree to be equivalent to graduation, had limited the relief to the petitioners who had approached the Court in time. So far as the appellants are concerned, they had approached the Court after the earlier Rules had been repealed and brought into force from 2012 notified on 11. Considering that the writ petitions were filed learned Single Judge has rightly found the claim of the appellants/ petitioners to be stale and the same would not survive after the new came into force. In view thereto, no case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed, both on merits as well as on the ground of delay. Application No.CM-4369-LPA-2024 accordingly dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No The Supreme Court in its order granting benefit to the persons, who equivalent to graduation, had limited to the petitioners who had approached the Court in time. So far as the appellants are concerned, they had approached the Court after the earlier Rules had been repealed and the new Rules had been 2012 notified on 11.04.2012. Considering that the writ petitions were filed later on in 2012/2013, the learned Single Judge has rightly found the claim of the appellants/writ would not survive after the new In view thereto, no case for interference is made out. Appeal is both on merits as well as on the ground of delay. for condonation of delay is All pending applications also stand disposed of. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No who equivalent to graduation, had limited So far as the appellants are concerned, they had approached the Court the new Rules had been 13, the writ would not survive after the new In view thereto, no case for interference is made out. Appeal is both on merits as well as on the ground of delay. for condonation of delay is MOHIT GOYAL 2025.03.21 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document