136
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
MANITA KUMARI
SHRI VINAY KUMAR, IRPS AND OTHERS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
Present: Ms. Anu Chatrath, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.
Mr. Arun Beniwal, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
HARKESH MANUJA
Learned State counsel refers to letter dated 22.10.2024
written by office of Secretary, Haryana Staff Selection Commission,
Panchkula, whereby, name of the petitioner has been recommended for
the post of Art and Craft Teacher.
Learned State counsel furt
process of issuance of appointment letter in favour of the petitioner as
well as the course of their joining shall be concluded within a period of
two weeks from today.
In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the pet
does not press the present petition.
Dismissed as not pressed.
Rule discharged.
However,
aforementioned period, as per the undertaking, the petitioner would be
at liberty to seek revival
the erring/concerned Officer would be liable to pay additional sum of
Rs.50,000/- as costs from his/her own pocket in favour of the petitioner
towards litigation expenses, immediately, i.e. on the first date of listin
of revival application.
22.10.2024
Tejwinder
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision:
MANITA KUMARI
Versus
SHRI VINAY KUMAR, IRPS AND OTHERS
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Ms. Anu Chatrath, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Ratik Chatrath Kapur Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Arun Beniwal, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
Learned State counsel refers to letter dated 22.10.2024
by office of Secretary, Haryana Staff Selection Commission,
Panchkula, whereby, name of the petitioner has been recommended for
the post of Art and Craft Teacher.
Learned State counsel further submits that the necessary
process of issuance of appointment letter in favour of the petitioner as
well as the course of their joining shall be concluded within a period of
two weeks from today.
In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the pet
does not press the present petition.
Dismissed as not pressed.
Rule discharged.
However, in case the needful is not done within the
aforementioned period, as per the undertaking, the petitioner would be
at liberty to seek revival of the contempt petition
the erring/concerned Officer would be liable to pay additional sum of
as costs from his/her own pocket in favour of the petitioner
towards litigation expenses, immediately, i.e. on the first date of listin
of revival application.
Whether speaking/reasoned
Whether Reportable
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
COCP-3527-2024
Date of Decision: October 22, 2024
........Petitioner
SHRI VINAY KUMAR, IRPS AND OTHERS ........Respondents
HARKESH MANUJA
Ms. Anu Chatrath, Sr. Advocate with
Ratik Chatrath Kapur Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Beniwal, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Learned State counsel refers to letter dated 22.10.2024
by office of Secretary, Haryana Staff Selection Commission,
Panchkula, whereby, name of the petitioner has been recommended for
her submits that the necessary
process of issuance of appointment letter in favour of the petitioner as
well as the course of their joining shall be concluded within a period of
In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner
in case the needful is not done within the
aforementioned period, as per the undertaking, the petitioner would be
empt petition and in that eventuality,
the erring/concerned Officer would be liable to pay additional sum of
as costs from his/her own pocket in favour of the petitioner
towards litigation expenses, immediately, i.e. on the first date of listing
(HARKESH MANUJA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
Yes/No
2024
October 22, 2024
Learned State counsel refers to letter dated 22.10.2024
by office of Secretary, Haryana Staff Selection Commission,
Panchkula, whereby, name of the petitioner has been recommended for
her submits that the necessary
process of issuance of appointment letter in favour of the petitioner as
well as the course of their joining shall be concluded within a period of
itioner
in case the needful is not done within the
aforementioned period, as per the undertaking, the petitioner would be
and in that eventuality,
the erring/concerned Officer would be liable to pay additional sum of
as costs from his/her own pocket in favour of the petitioner
g