PAWAN KUMAR CONTRACTOR vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — CWP/11953/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 21st April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 21-Apr-2026

CNR: PHHC010656412026

e-Filing Number

18-04-2026

Filing Number

CWP/23423/2026

Filing Date

18-Apr-2026

Registration No

CWP/11953/2026

Registration Date

18-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

21-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PAWAN KUMAR CONTRACTOR

    Adv. DINESH ARORA

  2. 2.Pawan Kumar Contractor

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

  2. 2.Pawan Kumar Contractor

  3. 3.Engineer in Chief

  4. 4.Executive Engineer

  5. 5.Sub Divisional Engineer

  6. 6.Sub Divisional Engineer

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Jagmohan BansalView PDF

    Case Summary: CWP-11953-2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of the petition by directing the State of Haryana to release admitted payment for work performed by contractor Pawan Kumar within four months. If payment is not released within this period, the State must pay 9% per annum interest from the expiry date. The petitioner's request for 18% interest was partially rejected, and disputed amounts may be approached through appropriate authority. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/11953/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CWP-11953-2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of the petition by directing the State of Haryana to release admitted payment for work performed by contractor Pawan Kumar within four months. If payment is not released within this period, the State must pay 9% per annum interest from the expiry date. The petitioner's request for 18% interest was partially rejected, and disputed amounts may be approached through appropriate authority. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case