Smt. Hardeep Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 December, 2009

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                  CHANDIGARH




                                       C.M. No. 3513 of 2009 in
                                       LPA No. 1329 of 2009 (O&M)

                                       Date of Decision: 10.12.2009

Smt. Hardeep Kaur                                        ..Appellant


                         Versus

State of Punjab and others                             ..Respondents


CORAM:      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL




Present :   Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Advocate,
            for the appellant.


                               *****

MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J. (Oral)

This appeal challenges the judgment of learned Single

Judge dated 4.11.2009 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner

was disposed of with a direction analogous to those issued in writ

petitions referred to in first paragraph of the impugned judgment.

Learned Single Judge has fairly stated that the appellant

would get an opportunity of availing of natural justice by appearing

before the appropriate authority for establishing the genuineness of the

documents in a manner similar to that given in connected writ petitions.

The grievance of the appellant appears to be that his client has not been

granted protection by the learned Single Judge whereas the learned

Single Judge has granted protection to the persons who were not
C.M. No. 3513 of 2009 in
LPA No. 1329 of 2009 (O&M) [2]

relieved till 04.11.2009 as a consequence of the orders of removal and

allowed to continue to serve till the orders are passed by the

respondents on the review/consideration of the claims. On going

through the record, we find that the appellant is not entitled to the said

relief because it is not in dispute that on the date, the petition was filed

and the order was passed, the writ petitioner was not in service. The

writ petition was filed on 03.11.2009 and disposed of on 04.11.2009

by the learned Single Judge whereas the petitioner’s services were

terminated on 31.10.2009. The petitioner obviously could not avail the

protection granted by the learned Single Judge as that would amount to

an order restoring her services by restoring status quo ante. Even

otherwise, we are satisfied that the appellant has been afforded full

protection and an opportunity to establish her credential bonafides.

Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby

dismissed.

(MUKUL MUDGAL)
CHIEF JUSTICE

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
10.12.2009
‘ravinder’