High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCOCP/2362/2015dismissed

Harbhaj Saini v. Gurvinder Singh Gill

2017-02-28Mr. Justice S.P. Bangarh2 pages

Manoj Kumar 2017.03.01 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP No.2362 of 2015 #1#

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.2362 of 2015 Date of Order: 28.2.2017 Harbhaj Saini ....Petitioner

Versus

Gurvinder Singh Gill ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

Present:

Mr. Balbir Kumar Saini, Advocate for Mr. Ram Niwas Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Nalwa, Addl.A.G, Punjab.

Mr. Vikas Suri, Advocate for the respondent.

JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) The petitioner while working as Reader in the Lower Courts, Haryana, in the pay band of Rs.9300-34800/- plus GP 3600/-, was promoted to the rank of Superintendent on 04.5.2010 in the pay band of Rs.15600-34800/- plus GP 5400/-. The writ petition bearing CWP No.20781 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for grant of annual additional increment on account of his promotion as Superintendent as per Rule 10 of the Haryana Civil Services (RP) Rules, 2008 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 07.10.2014 with the direction to the Registrar (General) of this Court to look into his claim as set out in his legal notice dated 13.3.2014 and decide the same in view of the decision of Division Bench of this Court passed in CWP No.16975 of 2010 within three months.

COCP No.2362 of 2015 #2# The petitioner received no communication within the stipulated time, hence the present contempt petition. Upon notice, the Registrar (General) of this Court and the Secretary, Justice Department Haryana have filed their separate replies.

In the reply filed on behalf of the State, a detailed speaking order dated 08.2.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana, Administration of Justice, Department has been annexed whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by assigning of well founded reasons. At the time of hearing today, learned counsel for the parties concedes that no further action is warranted in the present petition.

Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed as having become infructuous and the rule is discharged. However, the petitioner may seek his legal remedy in accordance with law against the order dated 08.2.2017, if so advised. February 28, 2017 (JASWANT SINGH) manoj JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No