Satyanarayan vs State Of Haryana And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 205 P&H

108           CWP No.21468 of 2020 (O&M)                           1


HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


108                                        CWP No.21468 of 2020 (O&M)
                                           Decided on:18.01.2021

Satyanarayan                                                  ... Petitioner

                                     Versus

State of Haryana and others                                  ... Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA

Present:      Mr. Vineet Kumar Jakhar, Advocate
              for the petitioner.

              Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Additional AG, Haryana.

              (The proceedings are being conducted through video
              conferencing, as per instructions.)

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral)

CM-653-CWP-2021

Application under Section 151 of CPC for placing on record

copy of judgments as Annexure P-8 and P-9 is allowed subject to all just

exceptions.

CM stands disposed of.

Main case

The present writ petition has been filed under Article

226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of

certiorari for quashing the order dated 26.06.2004 (Annexure P-5) passed

by respondent No.4 whereby deemed date of promotion to the rank of

Sub Inspector has been rejected.

The cause of action as sought to be revived by the petitioner

1 of 2

by serving a legal notice dated 06.11.2020 (Annexure P-6) after a period

of 16 years and then filing the writ petition seeking such direction.

Keeping in view the delay as such this Court is not inclined

to entertain the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches as

admittedly the petitioner had retired from the service on 30.11.2000. He

had also approached the Civil Court on 05.03.2005 (Annexure P-8) for

payment of interest on delayed payment of his retrial benefits. If the

petitioner had any grudge as such against the order 26.06.2004 (Annexure

P-5) he could have raised challenge to the said order at that point of time.

Having failed to do, he has filed the writ petition at this belated stage and

seeks a relief of consideration for such belated claim.

Accordingly, this Court does not deem it fit to exercise its

extraordinary jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Faced with this situation counsel submitted that he would

avail the alternative remedy. It is open to the petitioner to exercise the

same in case it is legally tenable.

The present writ petition is disposed of.

                                                   (G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
18.01.2021                                                 JUDGE
Parveen

             Whether speaking/reasoned:                     Yes/No
             Whether Reportable:                            Yes/No




                                 2 of 2