CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Hans Raj vs State of Punjab and others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 15 March 2012 · Citation: (2012) 03 P&H CK 0175

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ajay Tewari, J
CASE NUMBER
C.W.P. No. 4789 of 2012
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 184 words

Ajay Tewari, J.—Notice of motion. Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, learned DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply five copies of the petition to the learned DAG during the course of the day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution.

3.

Having regard to the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file their counter-reply (ies)/affidavit(s), at this stage.

4.

The petitioner seeks his promotion from the date his juniors were promoted.

5.

Counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the controversy involved herein is squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in CWP No. 2527 of 2012, Sulakhan Singh vs State of Punjab and others, decided on 10.02.2012

6.

Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as in CWP No. 2527 of 2012. Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the respondents under the signatures of the Court Secretary.