Lal Singh of ingh and another v. State of Haryana yana and others
Case Details
LPA-328-2019 (O 19 (O&M); LPA-544-2019 (O&M) Page 1 of 4 219 1. IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB ARH CHANDIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA AT STATE OF HA F HARYANA AND OTHERS LAL SINGH A GH AND ANR 2. Vs. **** STATE OF HA F HARYANA AND OTHERS MAL KIRORI MAL Vs. **** M) LPA-328-2019 (O&M) lants . . . . Appellants s . . . . Respondents M) LPA-544-2019 (O&M) lants . . . . Appellants dent . . . . Respondent Date of Decision: 20.0 20.02.2025 ****
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ CORAM: HO HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEE HO SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. A.G., Present: M for the appellants. for A.G., Haryana **** M Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate for the respondents. for **** SANJEEV PR ral) V PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Learned arned counsel appearing for the respon ners respondents/original writ petitioners submits t bmits that the Hon’ble Single Judge d s i.e. udge decided three writ petitions i.e. CWP-93 9369-2017 titled as ‘Lal Singh of ingh and another vs. State of Haryana yana and others’, CWP-9370-2017 ate 017 titled as ‘Kirori Mal vs. State of Harya aryana and others’ and CWP-9371 nd 371-2017 titled as ‘Suresh Chand alias Su s Suresh Kumar vs. State of Hary r on Haryana and others’, together on 07.08.20 .08.2018, incorporating the same judg sions e judgment in all the three decisions separatel parately. MOHIT GOYAL 2025.02.21 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-328-2019 (O 19 (O&M); LPA-544-2019 (O&M) Page 2 of 4 2. The Stat e State of Haryana filed three LPAs f the LPAs challenging the order of the Single Ju ngle Judge. The first appeal bearing L e up aring LPA No.297 of 2019 came up before th fore the Division Bench headed by Ho stice, by Hon’ble The Then Chief Justice, HMJ Kr Krishna Murari, and the Court p r on ourt passed the following order on 07.02.20 .02.2019: “2. Regularization of service vices of the respondent has been directed on the strength of a jud be a judgement of the learned Single Judge in CWP-14111-2001 tit Sin 1 titled as Pardeep Kumar and others vs State of Haryana a an a and others decided on 18.05.2009 which was passed on 18 on identical facts and circumstances. The judgement ren cir rendered in the case of Pardeep Kumar (supra) came to be Pa be affirmed by a Division Bench judgement dated 25.01.2010 Be 2010 rendered in LPA-91- 2010. 20 3. Since the issue involved in ed in the present appeal is same as the one which stands answ sa answered by the Division Bench judgement dated 25.01.2010 Be 010 in LPA-91-2010, with which we are in respectful agreem wh reement, this appeal also stands dismissed on the same terms sta erms and the reasoning as assigned therein.” as 3. The seco e second appeal bearing LPA No.328 e the 328 of 2019 came up before the Court on urt on 01.03.2019, and the following o wing order was passed: “Notice of motion for 11.07.2 .07.2019. Steps to serve the respondents ents be taken. Till the next date of listing, th g, the effect and operation of the impugned order passed by the of y the learned Single Judge shall remain in abeyance.” sh 4. On 01.0 01.03.2019, the Court was not ional not informed by the Additional Advocate vocate General appearing for the Stat LPA e State of Haryana that similar LPA MOHIT GOYAL 2025.02.21 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-328-2019 (O 19 (O&M); LPA-544-2019 (O&M) Page 3 of 4 No.297 o .297 of 2019 has already been dismis h he dismissed on 07.02.2019, though he was appe s appearing in the same case. 5. The third e third LPA bearing LPA No.544 of e the of 2019 also came up before the Division vision Bench on 18.03.2019, and the s that d the same Bench was informed that on identi identical facts, notice of motion has 019, n has been issued in LPA-328-2019, and inter d interim order was therefore passed i ed in assed in the same terms as passed in LPA-328 328-2019. Again on that day, t not day, the Division Bench was not informed ormed about the other identical LPA tood LPA No.297 of 2019 which stood already d eady dismissed on 07.02.2019, and ional , and the same counsel, Additional Advocate vocate General appearing for the Stat ng in e State of Haryana was appearing in the same same LPA. 6. Resultan sultantly, so far as the judgment pa in ent passed by the Single Judge in Suresh C esh Chand alias Suresh Kumar (s other (supra) stood upheld, the other two orde o orders passed on the same day in th tions y in the aforesaid two writ petitions were stay re stayed, obviously as the Division B bout ision Bench was not informed about its earlier earlier order passed on 07.02.2019. 7. The Cou e Court functioning is largely depend e by ependent on the statements made by the Law Law Officers. The Additional Advoc r the Advocate Generals appearing for the Governm vernment are required to act responsi that sponsibly, and it cannot be said that their per ir personal interest is involved in suc to be in such litigations. They have to be fair to th r to the Court. However, the approac ve is proach adopted as noticed above is most unf st unfortunate. 8. We need e need not say anything further, as the re us , as the said counsel is not before us today. H ay. However, we will have to set th t our set the things right and correct our MOHIT GOYAL 2025.02.21 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-328-2019 (O 19 (O&M); LPA-544-2019 (O&M) Page 4 of 4 own mis n mistake. We therefore, dismiss bo same both these appeals in the same terms as ms as passed in LPA No.297 of 2019 2019, decided on 07.02.2019. 9. Interim o terim orders passed by this Court shall t shall stand vacated. 10. All pend ll pending applications also stand dispo
Decision
d disposed of accordingly. (SANJE ANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) (ME JUDGE 20.02.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether 2. Whether ther speaking/reasoned? ther reportable? Ye Yes/No Yes/No Ye MOHIT GOYAL 2025.02.21 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document