Vijay Sawroop Kaushik vs State Of Haryana And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2425 P&H

CWP-16423-2021                              -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

                               CWP-16423-2021
                               Date of decision:-25.8.2021

Vijay Sawroop Kaushik

                                                                ...Petitioner
                  Versus


State of Haryana and others


                                                              ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN


Present:    Mr.Y.P. Malik, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr.Sharad Aggarwal, AAG, Haryana.

                  ****

H.S. MADAAN, J.

Case taken up through video conferencing.

Petitioner Vijay Sawroop Kaushik, aged about 60 years

working as Ayurvedic Doctor/Professor in MSM Institution of Ayurveda,

BPS Mahila University, Khanpur Kalan, District Sonepat has brought the

instant civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of

India against respondents i.e. State of Haryana through its Chief

Secretary, Haryana, Director, Higher Education, Haryana, Additional

Chief Secretary, Govt. of Haryana, Health Department and BPS Mahila

Vishwavidalaya, Khanpur Kalan, District Sonepat craving for issuance of

a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to increase the

1 of 3

age of superannuation of the petitioner from 60 years to 65 years for

performing only clinical duties in view of Haryana Govt. Notification

dated 21.11.2016, copy Annexure P2 as has been done in case HCMS

Doctors on parity basis, in light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court dated 3.8.2021 passed in Civil Appeal No.4578 of 2021 arising out

of SLP(C) No.10156/2019 titled "North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Versus Dr.Ram Naresh Sharma and Ors." with connected matters.

The petitioner is said to have served a legal notice dated

7.8.2021, copy Annexure P5 upon respondents through his counsel before

filing of the present petition but no action has been taken thereon. As

such, he has filed the present writ petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner besides going

through the record and I find that in order to afford a reasonable

opportunity to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner and

if the same is found to have merit then to take remedial measures so as to

avoid unnecessary litigation, it would be proper and appropriate and in the

interest of justice if respondents are directed to look into the grievances of

the petitioner as contained in legal notice, copy Annexure P5 in light of

rules, regulations and settled law on the subject and take necessary action

in the matter, in accordance with law, if it is so warranted by facts and

circumstances of the case.

Ordered accordingly. A speaking order in that regard be

passed by respondents within a period of one month from the date of

receipt of copy of the order.

In case the petitioner still feels dissatisfied after disposal of

2 of 3

the representation by respondents, then he may take recourse to the legal

remedy again in accordance with law.

25.8.2021                              (H.S. MADAAN)
Brij                                      JUDGE

Whether reasoned/speaking :            Yes/No

Whether reportable             :       Yes/No




                                   3 of 3