You are here: Home » PTI Stories » National » News
Business Standard

HC notice to Himachal govt on appointment of chief Par secys

Press Trust of India  |  Shimla 

The High today issued notice to the state regarding appointment of nine Chief Parliamentary Secretaries (CPSs) and sought its reply within a week.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir and Justice issued the notice on a PIL filed by a society 'Rule of Governance' which alleged that the nine CPSs appointed by the are "holding office of profit" as they have been extended the facilities granted to ministers.



The had also passed an Act to grant of financial benefits to the CPSs and also to negate the judgement passed by the high in 2004, quashing the appointment of CPSs as illegal.

The petitioner maintained that the High had also quashed the appointment of the CPSs and the Supreme had not granted any stay on that.

The state government, however, contended that the facts of the case of High and the were different.

The said the state had a legislation to appoint the CPSs and they were appointed in accordance with provisions of the Act.

(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

RECOMMENDED FOR YOU

HC notice to Himachal govt on appointment of chief Par secys

The Himachal Pradesh High Court today issued notice to the state government regarding appointment of nine Chief Parliamentary Secretaries (CPSs) and sought its reply within a week. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir and Justice Sandeep Sharma issued the notice on a PIL filed by a society 'Rule of Governance' which alleged that the nine CPSs appointed by the government are "holding office of profit" as they have been extended the facilities granted to ministers. The state assembly had also passed an Act to grant of financial benefits to the CPSs and also to negate the judgement passed by the high court in 2004, quashing the appointment of CPSs as illegal. The petitioner maintained that the Delhi High Court had also quashed the appointment of the CPSs and the Supreme Court had not granted any stay on that. The state government, however, contended that the facts of the case of Delhi High Court and the Himachal Pradesh government were different. The ... The High today issued notice to the state regarding appointment of nine Chief Parliamentary Secretaries (CPSs) and sought its reply within a week.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir and Justice issued the notice on a PIL filed by a society 'Rule of Governance' which alleged that the nine CPSs appointed by the are "holding office of profit" as they have been extended the facilities granted to ministers.

The had also passed an Act to grant of financial benefits to the CPSs and also to negate the judgement passed by the high in 2004, quashing the appointment of CPSs as illegal.

The petitioner maintained that the High had also quashed the appointment of the CPSs and the Supreme had not granted any stay on that.

The state government, however, contended that the facts of the case of High and the were different.

The said the state had a legislation to appoint the CPSs and they were appointed in accordance with provisions of the Act.

(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

image
Business Standard
177 22

HC notice to Himachal govt on appointment of chief Par secys

The High today issued notice to the state regarding appointment of nine Chief Parliamentary Secretaries (CPSs) and sought its reply within a week.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir and Justice issued the notice on a PIL filed by a society 'Rule of Governance' which alleged that the nine CPSs appointed by the are "holding office of profit" as they have been extended the facilities granted to ministers.

The had also passed an Act to grant of financial benefits to the CPSs and also to negate the judgement passed by the high in 2004, quashing the appointment of CPSs as illegal.

The petitioner maintained that the High had also quashed the appointment of the CPSs and the Supreme had not granted any stay on that.

The state government, however, contended that the facts of the case of High and the were different.

The said the state had a legislation to appoint the CPSs and they were appointed in accordance with provisions of the Act.

(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

image
Business Standard
177 22