Manish and others vs State of Haryana and others

ARUN PALLI , J. (Oral)

Learned counsel for the respondents submit that as the petitioners have since been offered employment, in lieu of the acquisition of their land holdings

and they have even joined, nothing substantive survives in this petition.

The factual position, as set out above, is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners, except that claim of petitioner No.3, i.e. Sandeep son of

Dharamvir, in CWP No.16914 of 2015, has not been considered yet.

Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3, submits, for name of petitioner No.3 was not forwarded in the first list of 293 candidates, who were

offered employment, there was no occasion to consider his claim. However, in the subsequent list sent by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Jhajjar

to Chief Executive Administration H.P.G.C.L. Panchkula on 17.4.2014, father's name of petitioner No.3, is reflected at serial No.3. Thus, upon

instructions from Sh.Sombir, Assistant, she submits that if petitioner No.3, represents, within two weeks from today, to respondent No.2, upon such

representation being made, his claim shall be considered and dealt with within a further period of four weeks. And, appropriate orders in

accordance with law shall be passed.

That being so, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that let this petition be disposed of, in terms of the statement made by learned counsel for

the respondents, for, the petitioner shall move an appropriate representation to the respondents/authorities.

The petition is accordingly disposed of, in the above terms. This Court is sanguine that in the event, the claim of the petitioner is declined by the

respondents-authority, they shall pass a comprehensive order assigning reasons in support thereof.