HC MEM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice of motion.

(2.) On our asking, Sh. Harish Rathee, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that a controversy similar to the one, raised in the instant writ petition, has already been disposed of while deciding CWP No.18904 of 2005 on 7.2.2006 (ASI Megh Pal and another vs. State of Haryana and others).

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the pleadings in the instant case. We are satisfied that the controversy raised in ASI Megh Pal's case (supra) was similar to the one as has been raised in the instant writ petition, except to the extent that the transfer in the aforesaid writ petition was to the GRP, whereas in the instant writ petition, it is to the IRB. Accordingly, subject to the modification of the aforesaid order, mutatis-mutandis, so as to refer to IRB in place of GRP, the instant writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as ASI Megh Pal's case (supra).