NARESH KUMAR vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — CWP/11048/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226/227. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 10-Apr-2026

CNR: PHHC010602092026

e-Filing Number

08-04-2026

Filing Number

CWP/21400/2026

Filing Date

08-Apr-2026

Registration No

CWP/11048/2026

Registration Date

08-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Coram

Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Category

63.66 - CASE RLT TO REL OF PAY OF WRK DON UND ORD GOVT FUN ( 759 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 12-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226/227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NARESH KUMAR

    Adv. DISHANT D TUTEJA

  2. 2.State of Haryana and others

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

  2. 2.State of Haryana and others

  3. 3.The Engineer in Chief

  4. 4.Superintending Engineer

  5. 5.Executive Engineer

  6. 6.Sub Divisional Engineer Public Health Engineering Department

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Jagmohan BansalView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed the State of Haryana to release payment to petitioner Naresh Kumar for work performed within 5 months, based on the State's assurance that any admitted liability would be discharged. If payment is not released within this period, the State must pay interest at 9% per annum, and the petitioner may approach appropriate authorities regarding any disputed amounts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/11048/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed the State of Haryana to release payment to petitioner Naresh Kumar for work performed within 5 months, based on the State's assurance that any admitted liability would be discharged. If payment is not released within this period, the State must pay interest at 9% per annum, and the petitioner may approach appropriate authorities regarding any disputed amounts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case