Suresh Kumar v. State Of Haryana Through Additional Chief Secretary To Govt Of Haryana Co Operation Department

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:26.05.2026 Suresh Kumar .....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present :

Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. AG Haryana.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1.

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.2 being illegal and liable to be set aside. Further praying for staying the operation of (Annexure P-6) during pendency of present writ petition. Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.2 and 3 not to retire the petitioner on 31.05.2026 till age of 60 years being IV class employee as the benefit of pay scale to post of Driver in FPL-6 like any

other class III post have not been granted and the petitioner has been deprived by both way. Further directing the respondents No.2 and 3 to revise the pay scale of post of Driver in FPL-6. Further praying for directing respondent No.1 to decide the revision petition No.42 of 2026 within a stipulated time.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the Board of Administration considered the issue involved in the present writ petition in its meeting dated 15.10.2024 vide agenda No.8. The said agenda clearly indicates that the great prejudice has been cause to the drivers by not giving them the proper pay scale of Class-III as we as no promotional avenues were created for them. The Board of Directors resolved that the Bank has no objection in the reversion of Drivers from Class-III to Class-IV. However, the Registrar Cooperative Soceities, Haryana vide order dated 08.09.2025 rejected the proposal of respondent No.3-Bank regarding reversion of Drivers from Class-III to Class-IV without assigning any reason, as is discernible from Annexure P-6. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.1 by filing Revision Petition on 25.02.2026 (Annexure P-7) which has not been decided till date.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at this stage, he will be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents/competent authority to decide the revision petition (Annexure P-7) of the petitioner by

passing a speaking order in a time bound manner by keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is going to retired within few weeks. 4.

Learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that they have no objection in case a direction is issued to respondents/competent authority to hear and decide the statutory revision petition filed by the petitioner dated 25.02.2026 (Annexure P-7) in a time bound manner.

5.

Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, without commenting upon merits of the case, present petition is disposed of and respondent No.1/competent authority is directed to hear and decide the revision petition dated 25.02.2026 (Annexure P-7) in a time bound manner and pass a speaking order, within a period of two weeks from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. 6.

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

7.

Copy of this order be supplied to the learned State Counsel for strict compliance and information.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 26.05.2026 Puneet Chawla Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. :

Yes/No