Prag Raj v. State Of Punjab & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.25904 of 2016 Date of decision: 15.12.2016 Prag Raj ..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others ..Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

Present:

Mr. S.S. Sarwara, Advocate for Mr. Amit Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.

*** Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral) The relief sought is for grant of 8/16/24/32 years proficiency step up increment to the petitioners.

It is the case of the petitioner that he is working as Watchmen with the respondent department since 1983 and is entitled for the above said benefit. It is pleaded that one Dalip Singh who had retired got the said benefit on account of a direction issued by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.12621 of 2011 titled as Dalip Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 25.7.2014.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent no.2 to decide the representations dated 01.08.2016 and 01.11.2016 (Annexures P-3 and P-4 respectively), which are still pending decision, within some time bound frame. Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, notice on behalf of the State has been accepted by Mr. R.S. Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. Neetu Rani 2016.12.19 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No.25904 of 2016 Keeping in view the limited relief sought by the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that there is no requirement of receiving any reply on behalf of the State.

Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 to take into consideration the representations dated 01.08.2016 and 01.11.2016 (Annexures P-3 and P-4, respectively) and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the petitioners are found entitled for the said benefit, the same be paid within two months thereafter. In case any adverse order is to be passed on the said issue then a reasoned order be passed by the said respondent.

The present writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

15.12.2016 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE √ Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No √ Whether Reportable Yes/No Neetu Rani 2016.12.19 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh