← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/17143/2017disposed of

Tej Ram And ORS. v. Haryana Urban Development Authority And ORS.]

2017-08-03Mr. Justice A.B. Chaudhari2 pages

CWP No. 17143 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17143 of 2017 Date of decision: 03.08.2017 Tej Ram and others ....Petitioner(s)

Versus

HUDA and others

...Respondent(s)

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

Present:

Mr. Y.P. Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners.

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral) The petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition for issuance of a direction to the respondents to refix their monthly wages (without monetary benefit), in the pay scale of category-C instead of category-D and to modify their nomenclature from W.P.A to W.P.O along with notional benefit.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that in this connection a legal notice dated 30.04.2017 (Annexure P-8) was issued to the respondents but despite the lapse of more than three months, the same has not been decided, and that they would be satisfied at this stage if in the first instance a direction is issued to respondent No.3 to decide the same by passing a speaking order thereon within any reasonable time. Reference is also made to similar directions issued in CWP No. 8049 of 2017, Naresh Kumar and others vs. HUDA and others, decided on 20.04.2017 (Annexure P-10) to submit that respondents have already acted positively vide order dated 14.07.2017 in granting the necessary relief. Shivani Gupta 2017.08.04 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No. 17143 of 2017 Without commenting on the merits of the case or the entitlement of the petitioners for the abovesaid relief and keeping in view the fact that the matter is still pending consideration, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no. 3 to take a decision on the said legal notice dated 30.04.2017 (Annexure P-8) within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order keeping in mind the relief granted in Naresh Kumar's case (supra). Needless to say if the benefit is to be declined, a reasoned order be passed and the same be conveyed to the petitioners.

03.08.2017 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) shivani JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Shivani Gupta 2017.08.04 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document