LPA-1438-2017 210 IN THE HARI OM PAR STATE OF HA CORAM: HO HO Present: M for M M for SANJEEV PR CM-3085-LPA Ap appeal is allow Main case 1. Learned seniority the writ have reti 2. However learned S writ petit is submi 017 (O&M) THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH M PARKASH AND ANR. Vs. F HARYANA AND ORS. **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEE **** Mr. Keshav Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G., H Mr. Bharat Pilania, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** V PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) LPA-2017 Application for condonation of d allowed, and accordingly delay is con arned counsel for the appellants sub niority is concerned, the issue has bec writ petitioner (respondent No.3 her retired. wever, he submits that an erroneous s rned Single Judge regarding appella it petition) and he has not been observ submitted that the fact was otherwise NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH LPA-1438-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.02.2025 . . . . Appellants . . . . Respondents SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA .G., Haryana. ral) n of delay of 64 days in filing of is condoned. nts submits that so far as inter se as become completely academic, as .3 herein) as well as the appellants us statement was recorded by the ppellant No.1 (respondent No.3 in observed in Ministers Car Section. It erwise. Appellant No.1 (respondent M) 2025 lants s g of se as lants y the .3 in on. It dent MOHIT GOYAL 2025.02.06 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1438-2017 No.3 the Section error had 3. In the no review a this LPA private r raised by issued by appellant seniority after he h 4. We, ther aforesaid otiose. 5. All pend 04.02.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether 2. Whether 017 (O&M) .3 therein) had already been absor ction, and Annexure P-5 has been refe or had crept in the order. the normal course, we would have as iew application, however, taking into s LPA for a long time i.e. 2017 and als ivate respondents have already retired sed by the appellants also is of no c ued by the learned Single Judge of sh pellant No.1 (respondent No.3 ther niority list instead of Ministers Car Sec er he has already attained superannuat e, therefore, do not say anything fu resaid observations and dispose of t l pending applications also stand dispo (SANJE (ME ther speaking/reasoned? Ye ther reportable? Ye absorbed with the Ministers Car en referred to point out that a factual ave asked the appellants to move a g into consideration the pendency of nd also that the appellants as well as retired, we find that the issue being f no consequence as the directions e of shifting and accommodating the 3 therein) in Haryana Roadways’ ar Section would be inconsequential, annuation. ing further apart from making the se of this appeal as having become disposed of accordingly. ANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Car ctual ve a cy of ell as eing tions g the ays’ ntial, the ome MOHIT GOYAL 2025.02.06 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document