Haryana gets govt staff to vacate 34 houses, 24 others in Panchkula served notice
A senior government officer told The Indian Express on Thursday that '34 out of the 58 identified houses have already been vacated by government staffers,' and 'notices have been issued to the occupants of the remaining 24 houses.' The officer added, 'They have been asked to vacate the houses by July 22 to ensure compliance with the high court's orders.'
On Tuesday, the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the state government to reallocate 58 government quarters — currently occupied by employees from other departments — to judicial officers and staff within a week. 'To the extent of the Chief Secretary admitting that 58 houses are deficient in the 15 per cent pool reserved for judiciary, contempt appears to be, prima facie, made out,' the Bench had observed. The court warned that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the Haryan Chief Secretary Anurag Rastogi's appeal against contempt proceedings.
The court's direction came alongside an order for charges to be framed against Chief Secretary for non-compliance with a 2011 court ruling that mandated the reservation of 15% of general pool government quarters for judicial officers and court staff, in in line with recommendations of the Shetty Commission and the Supreme Court.
Following these directions, the Haryana Public Works Department (PWD) got 30 houses vacated in a jiffy. Sources said the department has reported the vacancy of 27 houses to the District and Sessions Judge of Panchkula.
A senior officer stated, 'We have issued vacation notices to current occupants based on the 'last come, first go' principle. The notice period is about to end. These employees live with their families and, naturally, need time to find alternative accommodation, which may be the reason for the delay in vacating the houses.'
The contempt petition was filed by Rajesh Chawla, an employee of Panchkula District court, in October 2016, alleging wilful defiance of the high court's September 7, 2011, order directing the Haryana government to implement the Shetty Commission's recommendations and earmark 15 per cent of general pool government housing for judicial employees.
Chawla had alleged that the government misrepresented facts by claiming to have allotted 38 houses from the district pool in Panchkula, whereas the directive pertained to the general pool comprising quarters in both Panchkula and Chandigarh.
Arshdeep Bhullar, counsel for Chawla in the High Court, reiterated that 'as per the order, the 58 houses must be vacated within one week.'
Sukhbir Siwach's extensive and in-depth coverage of farmer agitation against three farm laws during 2020-21 drew widespread attention. ... Read More
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Advocate ‘warns of' taking HC judges to Supreme Court, issued contempt notice
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued contempt notice against an advocate, Ravneet Kaur, form making 'scandalous remarks' and 'per se contemptuous' allegations against the sitting high court judges and a trial court judge in her application seeking early hearing her pending case. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, while dictating the order in open court, took a stern view of the language used in Ravneet Kaur's plea, and held that it not only cast aspersions on the integrity of the judicial system but also attempted to browbeat the judges entrusted with the adjudication of her matter. 'The reckless allegations made by the petitioner were intended to bring disrepute to the justice administration system. The act of the petitioner is an attempt at intimidating the adjudicatory authority which prima facie amounts to interference in the judicial process,' the judge observed while issuing a notice under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to the petitioner advocate. Ravneet Kaur, who argued her case in person, had moved an application seeking advancement of the hearing in her main petition that is listed for October 31. In her plea, she claimed she was being harassed by the deliberate delay in her matter and warned that if it was not taken up 'at the earliest date' she would be 'left with only option to implead Justice Sh. Sandeep Moudgill, Justice Sh. Harpreet Singh Brar and Sh. Baljinder Singh ASJ (Additional Sessions Judge) as party to file SLP (Special Leave Petition) before Hon'ble Supreme Court… because deliberately and intentionally justice has been denied… delaying the present applications and main petition just to cause harassment… to put the petitioner under pressure to withdraw the present complaints against IPS Gurpreet Singh Bhullar'. The court reproduced the statement in full in its order and held that such 'scandalous remarks attacking the integrity of the justice dispensation mechanism' could not be justified. 'Not only has she failed to indicate how she has been intentionally victimized in the matter at hand, she has also made scandalous remarks attacking the integrity of the justice dispensation mechanism… the pleadings of the petitioner are per se contemptuous,' Justice Brar said. The judge noted that Ravneet Kaur, 'not a layperson but a qualified Advocate', could not claim her 'unceremonious behaviour stemmed out of lack of knowledge.' Citing a Constitution Bench ruling of the Supreme Court in M.Y. Shareef vs Judges of the High Court of Nagpur (1955 SCR 757), he reiterated that 'counsel who sign applications or pleadings containing matter scandalising the Court… are themselves guilty of contempt of Court… his duty is to advise his client for refraining from making allegations of this nature in such applications.' The court also traced the listing history of the main case. It was consistently heard since May 29, 2024, before another bench, which later recused on May 26, 2025. The matter then came before Justice Brar on May 29, when it was adjourned at the petitioner's request. It was heard by the Vacation Bench on June 6 and June 18 and was again listed on July 14 but could not be taken up because of a 'heavy cause list of 191 cases inclusive of matters listed specially under the Mediation of Nation Drive.' On July 22, when around 245 cases were listed, Ravneet Kaur pressed for an early hearing, but the bench found 'no justifiable reasons' to grant her prayer. The court even offered her the assistance of the High Court Legal Aid Services, which she declined. Issuing the contempt notice, the bench said the allegations amounted to 'an unwarranted and unjustified challenge to the authority of the courts' that 'undermines the dignity of the rule of law' and 'have the potential of shaking the very edifice of the judicial system which would inevitably shake the faith of the public in the institution.' While refusing to advance the hearing to an earlier date, the court, 'in the interest of justice', listed the main petition for August 29.
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
ED opposes M3M director's plea to quash graft FIR: ‘Don't need sanction to prosecute private person'
The Enforcement Directorate Tuesday opposed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court a plea moved by M3M Director Roop Bansal seeking to quash a corruption case registered against him for allegedly conspiring to bribe a trial court judge. In the case, Bansal is booked under Sections 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) along with Section 120-B of the IPC. Bansal's lawyers contended that the proceedings were invalid due to the absence of sanction required under Section 17A of the PCA to prosecute the judge allegedly linked to the bribery. The counsel argued that a person could not be prosecuted solely under Section 120-B for criminal conspiracy unless tried alongside the public servant accused, and that without sanction against the judge, the entire case stood vitiated. Countering this, senior panel counsel Zoheb Hossain, appearing with Lokesh Narang for the ED, contended that the plea of want of sanction was not available to Bansal as he was a private individual, not a public servant. The ED further submitted that even if proceedings against a public servant were barred for lack of sanction, it would not automatically nullify the prosecution of private individuals accused of aiding, abetting, or conspiring to commit offences under the PCA or under Section 120-B of the IPC. After Chief Justice Sheel Nagu had recused from hearing the matter as he had dealt with it on administrative side, Bansal's plea was listed before Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing virtually for the petitioner, sought an adjournment due to network issues. Considering the request, the bench adjourned the matter to July 30 for final arguments. The corruption FIR quashing plea in Roop Bansal vs State of Haryana has seen unusual twists and turns. It was first listed before Justice Anoop Chitkara in October 2023. After change in roster, the matter was listed before Justice NS Shekhawat who recused from hearing the case in January this year. The matter was then listed before Justice Kaul, before whom it was dismissed as withdrawn. It then went to Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, who heard the matter and reserved for judgment on May 2, with pronouncement due on May 12, when the Chief Justice, citing 'the interest of the institution' and the need to 'preserve and protect the reputation and dignity' of Justice Sindhu, reassigned it to himself on May 10. This case was assigned to Justice Kaul after Chief Justice Nagu recused himself from hearing it on July 3, citing the need to uphold the principle that justice must not only be done but 'should also appear to have been done.'
Indian Express
6 hours ago
- Indian Express
Only 52% of PM-SHRI Schools in Maharashtra have playgrounds according to Lok Sabha Answer
Only 450 out of 860 (52%) of PM-SHRI Schools in Maharashtra have playgrounds according to data shared by Minister of State for Education Jayant Chaudhary in the Lok Sabha. The data was provided on Monday in a written answer to an unstarred question by seven opposition MPs from Maharashtra. PM-SHRI is a Union Government scheme wherein schools are developed to provide the quality education and ensure holistic development of all the students. These schools have Best in class modern facilities. This number excludes PM-SHRI Kendriya Vidyalayas and Navodaya Vidyalaya Samitis. MPs Supriya Sule, Nilesh Lanke, Varsha Gaikwad, Bhaskar Bhagare, Bajrang Sonwane, Sanjay Patil, and Dhairyaheel Mohite Patil asked Minister to provide, among other information, the number of Kendriya Vidyalayas (KVs) and PM-SHRI Schools currently operational in the state of Maharashtra. Details about student enrolment, infrastructure availability, and faculty strength in these schools, and district-wise information was also sought. The reply stated that 3,05,210 students were enrolled in the 860 PM-SHRI Schools in the state, and the total faculty strength was 9,141. 450 of these schools have a playground, which was the only information provided under infrastructure. Nashik district had the highest number of PM-SHRI Schools at 47 followed by Yavatmal at 42, Nanded and Solapur at 39, and Pune at 38. Mumbai Suburban had the lowest number of PM-SHRI Schools (2) while Dhule district had 10 such schools. In a statement shared with The Indian Express, Mumbai North Central MP Professor Varsha Gaikwad said, 'Maharashtra had the concept of Adarsh Shala even before PM-SHRI Schools and we had identified 488 schools under the same with all basic facilities. In the NEP, they copied this concept and renamed it PM-SHRI and cut funding for our Adarsh Shalas. Playgrounds were a mandatory condition under our Adarsh Shalas, but it is really concerning that only 52% of the schools selected under the PM-SHRI Schools have playgrounds. On what basis have these schools been named PM-SHRI Schools?' Gaikwad added that the focus under the PM-SHRI Schools seemed to be more about building contractor friendly infrastructure rather than schools that provide holistic education for children. The Indian Express spoke to Srikant Giri, Principal of PM-SHRI Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) School 53 B English, and Sangeeta Band, Principal of PM-SHRI PMC School 151 B, both of whom confirmed that their schools had a playground. Giri informed that his school was the first corporation school to be certified under PM-SHRI. Smart TVs, educational drawings on walls, sports equipment, and other facilities have been installed at the schools through the scheme funds. It is important to note that the data shared in Lok Sabha does not match with the data on the PM-SHRI website dashboard. According to the Lok Sabha reply, out of the 38 schools in Pune district, only 24 have a playground. However, according to the dashboard, all 38 schools in Pune have a playground. Similarly for the Ratnagiri district, the Lok Sabha reply stated that only 3 out of the 16 PM-SHRI schools have a playground, but according to the dashboard 12 schools have a playground. Such discrepancies were seen in other districts as well. The reply also stated that the state has 60 Kendriya Vidyalayas with 76,790 students enrolled and having a faculty strength of 2,723. Pune district had the highest number of KVs at 16 while districts like Yavatmal, Washim, Solapur, Latur, Dhule, Aurangabad, Bhandara, and Parbhani had only 1 KV. Out of the 60 KVs, 52 have been designated as PM-SHRI schools. The document also says, 'all KVs in the State of Maharashtra have sufficient infrastructure, basic amenities and ICT infrastructure, including smart classrooms, computer labs and internet connectivity, achieving 100% ICT saturation.' PM-SHRI Schools – 860 With Playground – 450 Students Enrolled – 3,05,210 Faculty Strength – 9,141 Kendriya Vidyalayas – 60 PM-SHRI KVs – 52 Students Enrolled – 76,790 Faculty Strength – 2,723 Soham is a Correspondent with the Indian Express in Pune. A journalism graduate, he was a fact-checker before joining the Express. Soham currently covers education and is also interested in civic issues, health, human rights, and politics. ... Read More
