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