High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/4158/2013allowed

Satpal v. State Of Haryana And ORS

2015-07-02Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal2 pages

CWP No. 4158 of 2013(O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 4158 of 2013(O&M) Date of decision : 02.07.2015 Satpal ....... Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ....... Respondents CWP No. 4159 of 2013(O&M) Date of decision : 02.07.2015 Baljinder Singh ....... Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ....... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI ***

Present:

Mr. R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Kuldeep Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner/s. Mr.Gaurav Jindal, Addl.AG, Haryana.

Mr.Ajay Ghangas, Advocate for respondent No.3. ***

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of the above said two writ petitions. Since common questions of law and facts are involved, they are being disposed of by this common order. By these petitions the petitioner/s claim arrears from the date when they were given the status of regular employees i.e. 01.10.2003.

SUNITA NAGPAL 2015.07.10 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity y of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 4158 of 2013(O&M) The precise argument raised by the petitioner/s is that similarly situated person who was appointed along with them and was regularised along with them, one Ram Phal, has been granted the benefit of payment but the same has been denied to the petitioner/s. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has very fairly accepted that this has in fact been so.

To my mind this would be hostile discrimination since there is no dissimilarity between the case of the petitioner and the aforesaid Ram Phal. In the circumstances these writ petitions are allowed. Respondent No.3 is directed to grant the identical benefit to the petitioner/s as was granted to the aforesaid Ram Phal (his petition bearing CWP No. 4165 of 2013 has been dismissed as having been rendered infructuous).

Since the main case has been decided, the Civil Misc. Application, if any, also stands disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE July 02, 2015 sunita SUNITA NAGPAL 2015.07.10 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity y of this document Chandigarh