CWP No.10619 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.10619 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.05.2010 **** Urmil Devi and another . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). Notice of motion. Mr. B.S. Chahal, learned DAG Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2. (2). The petitioners are serving as Anganwadi Workers in the Department of Social Welfare and Child Development, Punjab, for the last more than 20 years. Certain posts of Supervisors were advertised and the petitioners also applied in response thereto. The final selections were, however, challenged before this Court in CWP No.1926 of 1997 (Usha Rani and others vs. State of Punjab and others). During the pendency of the said writ petition, the State Government constituted a Committee under CWP No.10619 of 2010.doc - 2 – the Chairmanship of Sh. R.L. Kalsia, the then Director, Social Security and Women and Child Development Department, to go into the entire gamut of the controversy. The Committee submitted its report and in terms thereof, the afore- mentioned writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 19.05.2005 (Annexure P3) directing the State Government to get the claims of the aggrieved persons re-examined through the aforesaid Committee after due opportunity of personal hearing to all those were still aggrieved. The aggrieved persons were granted liberty to file their objections also. (3). The petitioners are said to have filed their representation(s)-cum-objections before the authorities on 06.09.2005 (Annexure P4). Their short grievance is that they have not been communicated the fate of their representation/objections till date. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and keeping in view the nature of relief sought by them, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondents No.1 & 2 to take cognizance of the aforesaid representation(s) sent by the petitioners and communicate its fate to CWP No.10619 of 2010.doc - 3 – them within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (5). Ordered accordingly. (6). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 28.05.2010 vishal shonkar