Harish Chander Balmiki vs State of Haryana and Another

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order (Annexure P-7), petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the impugned order. Learned counsel for the State submits that the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner after his retirement. Petitioner retired from the service of respondent-State on 31.8.1986 after attaining the age of superannuation, whereas the present writ petition was filed after about 7 years. He further submits that after due consideration of the matter, whatever was found due was granted to the petitioner.

Having heard the learned counsel for the State and after going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant writ petition is misconceived. Petitioner filed the present writ petition after about 7 years of his superannuation. He was seeking promotion from a retrospective date. He did not implead any private respondent who was likely to be affected by the promotion, which was being claimed by the petitioner.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the instant writ petition is misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance. Thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out. Resultantly, the present writ petition stands dismissed, however with no order as to costs.