SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 2773

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUNIL KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH AND OTHER – Respondent


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (106) CM-1490-CWP-2026 in/and RA-CW-55-2026 in CWP-889-2024 Date of Decision : February 11, 2026 Sunil Kumar .. Applicant-Petitioner Versus State of Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Nitin Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner.

Mr. Rohit Kaushik, Advocate, for respondents-UT, Chandigarh.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

CM-1490-CWP-2026 Present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 39 days in filing the review application i.e. RA-CW-55-2026. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. Delay of 39 days in filing the review application is condoned.

RA-CW-55-2026

1. Present review application has been filed for review of the order dated 19.11.2025 passed in CWP No.889 of 2024.

2. In the present review application, the prayer being raised by the applicant-petitioner is that the post of Clerk is lying vacant and therefore, it is incumbent upon the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant-

petitioner in a time bo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top