Parmod Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Ors

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Parmod Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 1 May, 2024

Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi

Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi

                                         Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059961



CWP-13305-2022            2024:PHHC:059961                         1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH


(251)                            CWP-13305-2022
                                 Date of Decision : May 01, 2024


Parmod Kumar                                                .. Petitioner



                                 Versus

State of Haryana and others                                 .. Respondents



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI


Present:     None for the petitioner.

             Mr. Tapan Kumar Yadav, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.


HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

1. In the present writ petition, the grievance being raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled for step up of his pay at par with his juniors keeping in view the instructions dated 12.09.2018 (Annexure P-

2).

2. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2017 keeping in view the order passed by this Court in CWP No.15128 of 2014, a copy of judgment has been appended as Annexure P-1. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that once the appointment has been given to the petitioner prospectively from the year 2017, the petitioner cannot claim the said benefit from the year 2014 especially when no junior of the petitioner has been appointed to the post of Junior Coach, Table Tennis from the date 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 07-05-2024 22:02:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059961 CWP-13305-2022 2024:PHHC:059961 2 prior to that of the petitioner as the petitioner has only been appointed to the said post from the waiting list.

3. On the last date of hearing, no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Today again, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It can be safely presumed that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the present writ petition keeping in view the reply filed by the respondents.

4. Dismissed for non-prosecution.

May 01, 2024                       (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha                                    JUDGE


             Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
             Whether reportable       : Yes/No




                                      2 of 2
                   ::: Downloaded on - 07-05-2024 22:02:30 :::