C.W.P. No. 21852 of 2008
Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others
Present: Dr.S.K.Redhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl.AG, Haryana.
***
Leaned counsel for the petitioner states that during the
pendency of the writ petition final order has been passed in the disciplinary
proceedings.
Consequently this writ petition is dismissed as having
been rendered infructuous. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge
the final order passed, if so advised.
(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE
April 24, 2009
sunita
C.W.P. No. 10488 of 2008
Present: Mr.R.K. Handa, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl.AG, Haryana.
***
There is yet another request for adjournment.
Considering the fact that the petitioner has an interim order in his favour
the matter is adjourned to 7.5.2009. It is made clear that no further
adjournment shall be granted.
(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE
April 24, 2009
sunita
C.W.P. No. 21502 of 2008
Present: Mr.R.K. Handa, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl.AG, Haryana.
***
To come up along with CWP No. 10488 of 2008 on
7.5.2009.
(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE
April 24, 2009
sunita
C.W.P. No. 10146 of 2008
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr.Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl.AG, Haryana.
***
Learned counsel for the respondents prays for a short
adjournment to ascertain whether the policy of enhancement of retirement
age of physically disabled persons has been decided not to apply to the
police department.
Adjourned to 19.05.2009.
(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE
April 24, 2009
sunita
C.W.P. No. 5685 of 2006 (O&M)
Present: Mr. S.S.Momi, Advocate
for Mr.J.S.Thind, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr.Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl.AG, Haryana.
***
There is a request for adjournment. Apart from this on
4.2.2009 it was mentioned that CWP No. 529 of 2006 titled Atul v. State of
Haryana which was decided on 12.12.2006 was a similar case. The file of
CWP No. 529 of 2006 (supra) has been attached but it is not the case of
Atul v. State of Haryana but some other case. It is directed that file of CWP
No. 529 of 2006 be detached and sent back to the Registry.
Adjourned to 18.05.2009 for arguments.
(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE
April 24, 2009
sunita
CM No. 7317 of 2009 in
C.W.P. No. 8604 of 2007
Present: Mr.S.S. Malik, Advocate
for the applicants.
Mr. K.L.Arora , Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl.AG, Haryana.
***
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has no
objection if the applicants are allowed to intervene as respondents.
Consequently 22 persons mentioned in para 3 of the
application are allowed to intervene as respondents in the matter.
Adjourned to 11.05.2009.
It is made clear that the matter shall be argued on that
date and no adjournment shall be granted.
(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE
April 24, 2009
sunita
C.W.P. No. 5572 of 2008
Present: Mr. Mukand Gupta , Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl.AG, Haryana.
***
Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record
which he states are the correct calculations and the same are taken on record
as mark B. Leaned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to go through
the same.
Adjourned to 18.05.2009.
(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE
April 24, 2009
sunita
C.W.P. No. 15072 of 2008
Present: Ms. Monisha Lamba , Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl.AG, Haryana.
***
Admitted. To be heard along with RSA No. 2266 of
2003.
(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE
April 24, 2009
sunita
C.W.P. No. 12461 of 2008
Present: Mr. R.K.Malik,Sr.Advocate
with Mr. P.K.Rohilla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate
for the respondents.
***
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a short
adjournment.
Adjourned to 7.7.2009.
(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE
April 24, 2009
sunita
C.W.P. No. 14206 of 2008
Present: Mr. R.K.Malik,Sr.Advocate
with Mr. P.K.Rohilla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate
for the respondents.
***
To be listed on 7.7.2009 along with CWP No. 12461 of
2008.
(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE
April 24, 2009
sunita
C.W.P. No. 14615 of 2008
Present: Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl.AG, Haryana.
***
As per office report reply has been filed. However,
learned counsel for the petitioner states that copy thereof has not been
supplied to him. Learned counsel for the respondents states that
inadvertently the file of the AG office is not traceable. Learned counsel for
the petitioner undertakes to supply a complete copy of the paper book to the
learned Additional AG so that the file of the AG office can be reconstructed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that there is no need to
file any replication.
Adjourned to 19.05.2009 for arguments.
(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE
April 24, 2009
sunita
C.W.P. No. of 2009
Present: Mr. , Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl.AG, Haryana.
***
(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE
April 24, 2009
sunita