IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.21362 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 03.02.2011 Balbir Singh Khokha ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present : Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arjun Pratap Atma Ram, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narinder Hooda, Sr. Addl. AG, Haryana. Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate and Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4. *** MAHESH GROVER, J. (Oral) The grievance of the petitioner is directed against the orders (Annexure P-9 & P-10) dated 16.11.2010. The petitioner contends that he deserves to be promoted as HFS Officer- II w.e.f. 29.10.1999. The petitioner had suffered a minor penalty for which reasons, ostensibly, his case for promotion was kept in abeyance while the promotion was granted to his junior. Subsequently, he made a representation, which was initially rejected but accepted again on further representation. Respondent No.3 who is father of respondent No.4 moved a representation to the competent authority urging him to reconsider the matter as the petitioner now by virtue of reconsideration of his representation stood promoted to the category of HFS-II and was placed over and above respondent No.4. By virtue of the impugned order, the said representation was CWP No.21362 of 2010 (O&M) -2- accepted. The contentions of the respective parties more or less are on the lines of their grievance which they have been agitating before the competent authority. What has intrigued the court is the fact that respondent No.3, who is alien to the controversy being the father of respondent No.4, made a representation of highlighting a grievance of which a grouse could have been made only by respondent No.4 as he was the sole affected person. At this stage, the petitioner as well as the respondents have stated before this court that they have no objection if the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the competent authority for reconsideration of the matter afresh by hearing all the affected parties and also by considering all the issues that have been raised herein the petition. On the basis of this consensual approach adopted by the parties to the petition, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders without expressing any opinion on the merits thereof and remit the matter back for reconsideration of the entire matter afresh. Respondent No.2 shall hear all the affected parties, who are present before this court and also take into consideration their respective grievance, which have been raised herein and pass an order in accordance with law. The exercise shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. CWP No.21362 of 2010 (O&M) -3- If any of the parties makes a fresh comprehensive representation, they may do so with a copy to the other side, and the same shall be considered by the competent authority. Disposed of. February 03, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) sonia Judge