Om Parkash v. State Of Haryana And Others

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 201(5) Date of Decision: 21.05.2026 Om Parkash

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present:- Mr. Suneel Ranga, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for applicants None for the non-applicant/petitioner TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral) This application has been filed seeking review of the order, dated 21.03.2024, whereby the petition stands disposed of in the light of statement made on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of additional ten per cent basic pay with dearness allowance in terms of Clause 11 of amended Teacher Transfer Policy, 2016 (for short, 'the 2016 Policy'). The order reads as under:

This petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant/release the benefits to the petitioner as per Clause 11 of the Teacher Transfer Policy (TTP), 2016, and letter No.2/15/2018 dated 10.05.2018, Annexure

-2P-4, issued by the Director Elementary Education, Haryana, Panchkula.

2.

The petitioner belongs to Rest of Haryana Cadre and was posted in Mewat District pursuant to the aforementioned transfer policies.

3.

Learned State counsel is not in a position to dispute that under the said transfer policies, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of additional ten per cent of basic pay with dearness allowance. He submits that the same will be released to him expeditiously.

4.

In view of the statement made, the petition stands disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2/Director General, School Education, Haryana, to release the claimed benefit to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from receiving a certified copy of this order.

2.

The non-applicant/petitioner is similarly placed as the petitioners in RA-CW-559-2024 in CWP-16257-2023 titled Rohit Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others. He also belongs to Mewat cadre and has not been transferred there pursuant to any transfer drive carried out in terms of the 2016 Policy.

3.

Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in RA-CW-559-2024 the instant review application is allowed and the order dated 21.03.2024 is recalled. The petition is restored to its original number and status, and hereby stands dismissed.

4.

Further, the second respondent/Director General, School Education, is directed to initiate appropriate action against the officer/official

-3who issued wrong instructions to learned State counsel leading to his making the statement before the Court, as recorded in the order that has been recalled. 5.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 21.05.2026 Payal Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No