Sudhir Kumar v. State Of Punjab & ORS

CWP No. 10799 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10799 of 2016 Date of decision: 31.05.2016 Sudhir Kumar ....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondent(s)

AND CWP No. 10816 of 2016 Shingara Singh ....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

Present:

Mr. M.S. Dalal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral) The present order shall dispose of two writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 10799 and 10816 of 2016, as common questions of facts and law are involved in both the writ petitions.

The petitioners, in both the cases, seek promotion from the post of Head Draftsman to the post of Assistant Corporation Engineer w.e.f. the date their junior i.e. respondent no. 3-Gurpreet Singh was promoted on 22.12.2011 (Annexure P-3). Resultantly, consequential service benefits including pay fixation arrears etc. alongwith increments and seniority are also prayed for.

Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out from the final SHIVANI GUPTA 2016.06.01 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 10799 of 2016 seniority list (Annexure P-2) that the petitioners were promoted to the post of Draftsman on 02.11.1998 and 04.11.1998 whereas, respondent no. 6 was directly appointed on 16.04.1999 and was placed at Sr. No. 6 in contrast to the petitioners, who were at Sr. Nos. 2 and 4 respectively. The said respondent had been promoted on 22.12.2011 as Assistant Corporation Engineer by respondent no. 1. Resultantly, the petitioners had represented and also served legal notice. It is further pointed out that Shingara Singh, petitioner in CWP No. 10816 of 2016, has, in the meantime, retired on 31.05.2015 and therefore, is entitled for notional benefits etc. Counsel submits that he would be satisfied if legal notices dated 14.03.2016 (Annexure P-5) served by the petitioners in both the cases are decided within a time bound frame.

Notice of motion.

Mr. R.S. Sidhu, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the State. He is supplied copies of the paper books in both the cases. Keeping in view the limited relief sought, this Court does not feel necessary to call upon the respondents to file reply. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, both the present writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 1 to decide legal notices dated 14.03.2016 (Annexure P-5) served in both the cases within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Needless to say if the relief is to be denied, the order shall contain reasons.

31.05.2016 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) shivani JUDGE SHIVANI GUPTA 2016.06.01 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh